Tuesday, 4 April 2017

The Archbishop of Trani, Giovan Battista Pichierri, has sent me a letter confirming that Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi OSJ has breached the moratorium he placed on the writings of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta. This means his books on this subject, including The Splendor of Creation, are to be avoided by all the faithful. Here is the Italian text of the letter below, followed by a rough translation using Google translate.

Dear Mr. Emmett O'Regan,
I received your e-mail of 21 February 2017 which informed me of your study and the response made on the publications of the priest Joseph Iannuzzi. Point out that this priest does not belong to this Archdiocese and did not receive from me any authorization, permission or warrant of any kind and in relation to publications both in reference to the study and dissemination. Right now the Archdiocese and the Association "Luisa Piccarreta - PFDV" are engaged in the typical edition processing and critical writings of the Servant of God on the basis of which it will be possible to complete the necessary translations in other languages ​​and additional theological research to be conducted. In any event, all of the official study activities at this time are agreed and coordinated in harmony with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints through the postulation. I assure you full availability for any further clarification, I greet you cordially and a Happy Easter.

Giovan Battista PichierriArchbishopYou can find the official text of the letter here.

Below is the text of the original email that I sent to the Archbishop:

Dear Excellency,

I am a theology graduate and writer from Ireland, and have been doing some research into Servant of God Luisa Piccaretta and the “Divine Will Movement” in North America. I am concerned about 2 books containing translations of Luisa’s writings that appear to breach the moratorium you placed on her writings in 2007. The books in question are “Proper Catholic Perspectives: On the Teachings of Luisa Piccarreta” (2010) and “The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of Luisa Piccarreta” (2013), both by Rev Joseph Iannuzzi OSJ. Neither of these translations of Luisa’s writings into English contain imprimatur, contrary to Canon 829: "The approval or permission to publish some work is valid for the original text but not for new editions or translations of the same." Father Iannuzzi claims that he has received official ecclesiastical approbation for his 2013 book from the Pontifical Gregorian University, which appears to usurp your singular authority over these writings. In his books, Father Iannuzzi claims that he received your official written endorsement for producing these translations. I presume by this he means your correspondence with him in 2003, in which you rescinded certain statements made by your Vicar General, Mons. Savino Giannotti, concerning Father Iannuzzi’s authority within the Archdiocese of Trani in relation to the writings of Luisa. Would you be able to confirm for me if you really did officially endorse Father Iannuzzi’s books, as he himself claims? My suspicion is that these books were in fact published without your permission, and that Father Iannuzzi misinterpreted your letter as an act of “endorsement”.

Yours faithfully in Christ,

Emmett O’Regan

My suspicions were based on the fact that none of Fr. Iannuzzi's works have the imprimatur of his responsible ordinary or the imprimi potest of his major superior, which contradicts Canon Law. In addition to this, in a communique from the Vicar General of Trani dating from 2003 we find the following statement: "Rev. Giuseppe Iannuzzi never had any position within the Archdiocese of Trani-Barletta-Bisceglie. He is concerned with finishing his studies on the mystical life, examining the texts of Luisa Piccarreta, up until now never being recognized by the Archdiocese; and neither has he ever been a Censor or preacher."
(See here)Compare the above with the wording of the 2007 moratorium issued by the Archbishop of Trani:"This Archdiocese following the opening of the Diocesan Inquiry has never appointed any theologian or official censor of the writings of Luisa. So likewise has not appointed any official translator of the writings in Italian into other languages"

189 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Emmett,

In the letters you posted from the Archbishop, I don't see any words confirming your assertion that "Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi OSJ has breached the moratorium...." Has Rev. Iannuzzi ever claimed to be the "official translator" for these writings? All the Archbishop appears to be saying is that Rev. Iannuzzi has not been given an official position and is not a member of his Archdiocese and is not apart of the Archbishop's own "additional theological research" into the life and writings of Luisa Piccarreta. The 2003 letter even admits that Rev. Iannuzzi "is concerned with finishing his studies on the mystical life, examining the texts of Luisa Piccarreta." To that end, Rev. Iannuzzi was even in Rome a while back presenting his academic study on the writings and life of Luisa Piccarreta. I think you are reading more into the Archbishop's words than you should Emmett. I can understand you might have a motive to do so since some of his eschatological theories conflict with your own. Perhaps Father Iannuzzi did misinterpret the Archbishop's reply. Maybe you are right and maybe I am wrong, Emmett, but wouldn't the prudent thing be to write to Father Iannuzzi for a rebuttal and post it here in the interests of charity?

Fr Iannuzzi claimed that he had permission from the Archbishop to issue authorised translations of the writings of Luisa Piccaretta. I specifically asked the Archbishop if he granted this permission, and he stated no. If Fr. Iannuzzi wants to offer a rebuttal, I will certainly consider posting it here.

Here is the words of the Archbishop on the moratorium: "neither the Archdiocese nor the Association, let alone the same Secretariat, have delegated any person, group or association to represent themselves outside their legitimate seat, in order to diffuse the life, thought and the writings of the Servant of God, or to make any decisions on their behalf. This Archdiocese following the opening of the Diocesan Inquiry has never appointed any theologian or official censor of the writings of Luisa. So likewise has not appointed any official translator of the writings in Italian into other languages ​​" "As I have already indicated at the conclusion of the diocesan cause, it is my desire, having listened to the opinion of the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints, to present a "TYPICAL AND CRITICAL EDITION" writings, in order to provide a safe and textually faithful work of Luisa Piccarreta. In this regard, I reiterate that the ownership of the writings is only the Archdiocese (Letter to the Bishops, 14 October 2006). To accomplish this challenging work that requires special skills, I will use a team of experts chosen by agreement with the postulation.7. I must, however, point out the increasing uncontrolled spread of transcriptions, translations and publications both on paper and computer. Instead, taking account of the sensitivity of the current phase every publication of the writings is absolutely suspended. Anyone who takes action in the opposite way disobeys and seriously damages the Cause of the Servant of God (Press, 30 May 2008). Therefore, in every way "leaps forward" regarding publication should be avoided.https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Luisa_Piccarreta1112.htm

Dear Emmett, if we follow your second link we find the Archbishop's response to you which has an addition, as does the original Italian letter, stating that the Archbishop rescinds the paragraph about Fr Iannuzzi. Does this change your opinion that Fr Iannuzzi has breached the moratorium? It has become confusing! Karen

Hi Karen. I mentioned about that letter which apparently rescinded those comments to the Archbishop himself in my correspondence with him. He reiterated that Fr. Iannuzzi does not have permission of any kind to publish Luisa's writings.

You claim there is a discrepancy between what the Archbishop of Trani says, and what Fr. Iannuzzi says. Did you ask Fr. Iannuzzi to explain the discrepancy for you?

You said would consider positing Fr. Iannuzzi's response. You can cut and paste it from herehttps://danieloconnor.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/fr-iannuzzi-response-to-mr-oregan.pdf

I think it is important to point out that in an important sense, Fr. Iannuzzi has not "published Luisa's writings" at all! He has not produced a new translation of any of the volumes of Luisa's Book of Heaven, or of either of the other two books associated with Luisa (The Virgin in the Kingdom of the Divine Will, The Hours of the Passion). Nor has he uploaded a document or file that contains a complete volume of Luisa's writings (an old translation or "pro-document") or anything similar. If Fr. Iannuzzi has included quotes from Luisa's writings (and yes, he has) in his own publications, that is another thing altogether.

I would also remind you of the spirit of the "law" (in this case, the "moratorium"). The intention of this moratorium was to prevent people from spreading false interpretations of Luisa's writings. One reason for this was inaccurate renderings of the original language in which they were written. Another reason is the absence of theologically sound commentary that would make doubly sure that Luisa's writings are interpreted in the context of the Catholic tradition. Now, as I'm sure you know, Fr. Iannuzzi learnt Luisa Piccarreta's own dialect of Italian in order to read the original texts for his thesis on Divine Will theology, and not rely on faulty translations. Second, the works that Fr. Ianuzzi has published are for the specific purpose of curbing the spread of false interpretations of Luisa's writings--which is hardly against the spirit of the moratorium! Indeed, he was encouraged to do his thesis on Divine Will theology for that same purpose. And you can hardly say that Fr. Iannuzzi (Ph.B, STB, M. Div, STL, STD) does not have enough theological training to teach others how Catholics should be reading Luisa's writings!

I wonder if any of this makes you change your mind.Or perhaps there's something I'm not seeing?

Hi Brendan. I'll post that up with my response to it. The fact is, the Archbishop of Trani holds the sole copyright to the entirety of Luisa's writings, and anyone that wishes to publish them must obtain his permission first. The Archbishop of Trani has explicitly stated that Fr. Iannuzzi did not have his permission to do so.

Brendan,There is the problem also that the Magisterium has not spoken on the correct interpretation of the Divine Will writings. Fr Iannuzzi gives his own interpretation and marries it up to the erroneous belief about a symbolic thousand year reign of Christ to come which is totally contrary to various statements of Popes, not to mention Gaudium et Spes 37 which states "For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man. The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord has attested." Also his idea that Lactantius was a "genius" does not match the view of Fr Brian E Daley, winner of the 2012 Ratzinger prize for theology and a world expert on patristics. In his 1991 book "Eschatology in the Early church" he stated that Lactantius' eschatology was a mixture of Christian, pagan and even occult apocalyptic writings. The spiritual millennium theory is totally at odds with magisterial teachings, in fact Fr Iannuzzi's belief that the Antichrist will come before this temporal Kingdom is also an error. The Catechism clearly states he will form the final persecution of the Church before the end of the world.

Here is the words of the Archbishop in the moratorium:"In the meantime, the Congregation [of the causes of saints] has informed me that “before proceeding any further, an examination of the writings of the Servant of God will be done in order to clarify difficulties of a theological nature” and that consequently, in the current state of the Cause, her writings may not be published. The rule of prudence and respect for the Church, therefore, obliges everyone to avoid any publication, be it in print or on the internet, of Luisa’s writings both in Italian and in any other language. This is true also because of legal reasons since the Archdiocese of Trani-Barletta-Bisceglie has exclusive ownership of, and rights to, her writings.”

I would actually be interested in reading more about your objections to Fr. Iannuzzi's eschatology (particularly on the era of peace); if you could provide a good reading list I would be grateful. I'm not in any position at the moment to respond to these objections.

That said, we should distinguish between the two accusations being made here--one against Iannuzzi's eschatology, the other against his supposed breach of copyright. I was only concerned with the latter. (The fact that they two accusations are being mixed together here is cause for concern. It seems like you are launching a general attack on a person, trying to hit him by any means available).

Emmett:I think you are missing something very important (and actually quite obvious) here. Let me put it like this. Your own published book, I would assume, has quite a lot of quotes from other books. Now in most cases the publishers own the copyright to these works (I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's right). I don't have access to your bibliography right now, but let's suppose one author you quote from is Jo Blogs who publishes all his writings through Oxford UP. Suppose I were to write to Oxford UP and ask them whether a certain Emmett O'Regan was given permission by them "to publish the writings of Jo Blogs." What would they say? They of course would say "no"--and by that they would mean that Emmett has no permission to publish the entirety of any volume of Jo Blogs. Now does that imply that Emmett has no right to publish a book in which there are (possibly extensive) quotes from the writings of Jo Blogs? Of course not!

We have both published before, and we both know that there is no need to contact every copyright owner to ask them permission to quote from a certain author. Where I live (Australia), 10% of a volume can be copied without explicit permission, or a whole chapter, whichever is more (last time I checked). I would be surprised if that were much different elsewhere in the Western world.

Don't you think it illogical and unjust that you would hold Fr. Iannuzzi to a standard that you don't hold to yourself, and that no researcher holds to either?

Unless I am missing something, I really think you should retract this particular accusation. Either that, or (a) produce documents that show that you have explicit permission to "publish the author's works" from the copyright owners of all the books you have quoted from, or (b) show that Fr. Iannuzzi has breached copyright according to the normal standard, not the imaginary (and rather odd) standard you have dreamt up--for the purpose of grinding an axe, it would seem. (Maybe you don't have an axe to grind; I couldn't know. But it certainly looks like it--I'm just informing you what things look like from out here.)

Good, clean theological debate is to be encouraged in the Church. But what you're attempting here is a low blow. If you have an issue with Fr. Iannuzzi's theology, that is all well and good. Debate the issue; don't attack the man.

Brendan, its not a matter of breach of copyright, which pertains solely to civil law, but the breach of the moratorium, which concerns ecclesiastical law. Here we have the sole copyright holder and responsible ordinary explicitly stating that the works of Luisa Piccaretta may not be published, which obliges "everyone" to avoid any of her writings. The fact of the matter remains that Fr. Iannuzzi did not and does not have permission to publish these writings according to ecclesiastical law. The onus is on Fr. Iannuzzi to prove that he has not breached the moratorium, and I would suggest that both him and yourself raise your objections to the Secretariat of the Cause of Luisa. If the Secretariat affirms that Fr. Iannuzzi has not breached the moratorium, I will immediately retract any claims to contrary and will issue Fr Iannuzzi with a public apology. I would suggest reading Stephen Walford's books, Communion of Saints (particularly the epilogue) and Heralds of the Second Coming, as well as my own.

You claim, Emmett, that the moratorium "obliges everyone to avoid any of her [Luisa's] writings". But if you had been more prudent, and actually done your research, you would know that this is not true. The Archbishop of Trani wrote in 2012: "Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable."

I include below an excerpt from an unofficial translation of the Archbishop's third press release about the process of beatification and canonization of Luisa Piccarretta (emphasis in the original Italian and in the translation, a couple of typos removed from the translation). I am astounded that you did not even check your facts against this readily accessible document before proceeding as you did.

<<8. With joy I note also the news I receive, as groups that are inspired by the Divine Will are quick to strengthen the bonds of communion with their diocesan bishops, realizing that indispensable communion that puts them organically in the Local Church (Press, 30 May 2008). I repeat, therefore, that the initiatives that are taken in reference to the spirituality of Luisa, such as conferences, days of spirituality, prayer meetings, etc., to give peace of mind to those who participate, must be authorized by their Bishop (Letter dated 24 November 2003).9. Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable. As well as, an invitation to strengthen the unity and communion among sister dioceses in which are found individuals, groups and associations inspired by the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta and know her writings (Final Communiqué, 28 October 2005).>>

The original was published on the 1st of November 2012 and can be found at the official website for the cause of Luisa's beatification.http://www.causaluisapiccarreta.it/pagine/testo.aspx?codpage=COM_30

<<4. Pending the outcome of this prayerful inquiry, I wish to address those who say that the writings contain doctrinal errors. This, today, is not endorsed by any ruling of the Holy See, nor by my staff. I would note that in this way the legitimate judgment of the Church is anticipated, causing a certain scandal to the faithful whom these writings have nourished spiritually, and giving rise to suspicions even among those of us who are zealous for the remainder of the Cause. Waiting for the judgment of the competent authority, I invite the most serious and thorough personal reading, meditation and reflection on these writings in the light of Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church.>>

Brendan,The simple fact is, the archbishop more or less acknowledges that he cannot stop people reading the writings that are already out there, but what the 2012 statement clearly says is that"taking account of the sensitivity of the current phase every publication of the writings is absolutely suspended. Anyone who takes action in the opposite way disobeys and seriously damages the Cause of the Servant of God." Now, Fr Iannuzzi's dissertation came out in 2013, and was not publshied even by the Gregorian University, but by St Andrew's Press in the USA. So please could you tell us how that is not breaching the clear words of the archbishop? There is no way the Gregorian University-even if it ordered Fr Iannuzzi to publish it- has the authority to go over the archbishop who has sole authority along with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

There may not be any doctrinal errors in Luisa's writings, but there is certainly doctrinal errors in Fr. Iannuzzi's interpretation of her writings - especially in his promotion of a millenarian spiritual reign of Christ on earth during an invisible "middle coming". Such extreme interpretations of her writings is why all publications of them have been suspended until the critical edition. Fr. Iannuzzi has patently acted against the Archbishop's moratorium, and the fact that he uses the writings of Luisa Piccaretta to advance his millennial theories is certainly damaging her cause.

I have already answered your questions above. But let me re-state my reasons for my claim that Fr. Iannuzzi has in all likelihood not "breached the moratorium." I doubt I will have anything else to add after this.

1. What is the most straight-forward and natural interpretation of "publishing the writings of x"? I have published an article with quotations from John Milbank, Thomas Aquinas, and Pseudo-Dionysius (amongst others). Now let's say I write on my resume that amongst my achievements I have published the writings of Aquinas, and the writings of Milbank, and the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. How would that be understood? Would my statements be accurate, or would they be misleading? Would you, Emmett, be comfortable writing a statement on your website that you have published the writings of Augustine (I am assuming here that you have referred to him in your book)?

2. Granted, usually the writings of authors are published in piece-meal fashion. We don't across all of Augustine's writings in a single volume, for example. But still, if I write a book that includes a few passages from Augustine--or even a book which is solely about Augustine, and quotes from him extensively--it would be misleading (at best) to say that I have contributed to the publication of Augustine's writings. In order to contribute to the publication of someone's writings, one needs to publish those writings in the correct form. The writings would have to be preserved whole and continuous--this is crucial. If people want to consult the works of Augustine, where do they turn? Do they turn to a book in which quotes from Augustine are scattered? Hardly.

3. On your interpretation of the Archbishop of Trani's statement, he has forbidden (at least for now) anyone to publish (say) a theological journal article that quotes a single sentence from Luisa Piccarreta's writing. Do you think that is likely? Does the Archbishop really have that sort of authority?

4. If you are so concerned about Luisa's cause, why did you not first go after those people at all those other websites who have uploaded the ENTIRETY of Luisa's works?

5. You will answer that Fr. Iannuzzi has mixed his own false interpretation with the writings of Luisa. Well, that is your understanding--and you are entitled to it, I suppose--but neither of you are official representatives of the cause of Luisa. Be careful you do not do the same thing that you have accused Fr. Iannuzzi of doing.

6. Finally, as I already mentioned earlier, there is the spirit of the moratorium (I have already dealt with the letter). Father Iannuzzi is certainly qualified to guide people away from false interpretations of Luisa's writings.

7. The onus is on you to seek further clarification from the Archbishop of Trani on the moratorium and the status of Fr. Iannuzzi's work, if you are not convinced. (If and when you do that, you should probably word your letter a bit better to avoid ambiguity). To put the onus on others is to say that Fr. is guilty until proven innocent.

8. I do not claim to be the "official interpreter" of the Archbishop of Trani's statement. If His Grace or some official representative of his were to correct my reading of his statement, of course I would comply. Here I am simply doing my best to interpret his statement in the most natural way.

Rachmaninov said "the archbishop more or less acknowledges that he cannot stop people reading the writings that are already out there."

When you write it like that, it sounds as if the archbishop begrudgingly accepts that people will still read the writings of Luisa. But point 9 in his official letter (already quoted by me above) suggests otherwise:

"Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable".

Brendan, the fact remains that Fr. Iannuzzi has published a large volume of the writings of Luisa Piccaretta despite the Archbishop of Trani specifically stating that none of her writings may published without his express permission or that of the Secretariat. There is no way round this. Additionally, Fr. Iannuzzi's works on Luisa Piccaretta, including Splendor of Creation, do not bear the imprimatur of his responsible ordinary or the imprimi potest of his major superior, which is in direct contravention of Canon 832: "To publish writings on matters of religion or morals, members of religious institutes require also the permission of their major Superior, in accordance with the constitutions." I do not bear Fr. Iannuzzi any animosity, I am just concerned that he is unwittingly leading quite a lot of people into error on this subject.

Maybe the bishop of the diocese should just read over the priest's writings about her and declare them free of doctrinal error or not. It might give others the feeling of liberty to break moratoriums, but it would make a statement about the bishop's authority over those matters. Until then, he could ban sales of the priest's books at Catholic media stores until or if he approves of the books in question with a penalty of once committing a mortal sin for selling the materials, regardless. I, personally, see no reason

Fr. Corapi's materials are not played on orthodox Catholic tv or media. He made himself a bad example after things went south for him, it's true and should be a disclaimer, but his teachings were doctrinally sound, I believe. Catholic radio has speeches made by Medjugorje devotees talking highly of its famous disrespectful (of the bishops' declarations), if not disobedient, priest, but no Fr Corapi is played. Interesting.

Emmett said "the fact remains that Fr. Iannuzzi has published a large volume of the writings of Luisa Piccaretta despite the Archbishop of Trani specifically stating that none of her writings may published without his express permission or that of the Secretariat. There is no way round this."

Emmett has only repeated his claim without addressing any of my reasons for believing his claim to be false. Just sticking one's heels in and saying "there is no way round this" is not an argument.

As for Emmett's next point, Fr Iannuzzi writes that he has in fact obtained in writing every year from his superior a letter of suitability, and a letter of endorsement for his work. Father writes that Emmett "in his ignorance failed to write to my superior who is the proper ecclesiastical authority and who alone can grant me a letter of endorsement for my work (which I have obtained very year), but he chose to write the Archdiocese of Trani to which I do not belong and which cannot canonically grant such a letter."See herehttps://danieloconnor.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/fr-iannuzzi-response-to-mr-oregan.pdf

I notice that Emmett has not included Father's response here on his blog yet, as he promised to do.

If Emmett is right about Fr. Iannuzzi's thesis--that it contains serious error--then: (1) the 45 bishops who proclaimed that the work provides an "essential service to the Church" were all deluded--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman, Mr O'Regan.(2) The Archbishop of Trani himself was deluded when he personally wrote to Fr. Iannuzzi to endorse Father's writings on Luisa Piccarreta--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman (Mr O'Regan).(3) The authorities that be in the Gregorian Pontifical University, which is authorised by the Holy See, were seriously misguided when they approved with high honours Father's thesis--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman (Mr O'Regan).(4) All of Father Iannuzzi's theological training, and his research on the work of Luisa, is to be discounted and put aside--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman (Mr O'Regan).

I am sure that Emmett provides a service to the Church with his research and even with his differing point of view. But I find the idea that he as an individual layman, has more authority on this subject than the clergy mentioned above taken together, to be extremely unlikely.

Brendan,The problem is not-at least for me with- Luisa Piccaretta's writings which we await the proper interpretation from the proper authorities.The problem is the spiritual millennium theory which Fr Ianuzzi promotes. Now unfortunetely there is a clear contradiction between his view of what is to happen and the magisterium. Gaudium et Spes clearly teaches evil will continue to grow until the end of the world; various popes have said the same. In fact John Paul II in a general audience in 1986 said the Book of Revelation shows how evil will increase in a spiralling way towards the end. Now what Fr Ianuzzi has done is link Luisa Piccaretta's writings to the spiritual millennium theory, and I have never seen one reference to Rev 20 in any of her writings, or about the era of peace being temporal. St Hildegard of Bingen, Doctor of the Church in her mystical writings says no resurrection of the dead until good and bad together on the last day. The our Father will only be fulfilled after the end of the world not before thats in the Catechism.Theological gymnastics to try and put square pegs in round holes does not help anyone, and thats why Luisa Piccaerreta's writings should be left alone until such time the CDF theologians finish their work and if they are accepted as authentic, be given an intepretation that is consistent with the teachings of the Church. Lactantius whom Fr Ianuzzi called a genius was getting his eschatological writings from a variety of soures including pagan and occult. Fr Iannuzzi didnt tell anyone that-but fortunately world expert of patristics, Fr Brian Daley winner of the 2012 Ratzinger prize for theology did.

I have deleted your post where you quoted Luisa Piccarreta's writings, since the ecclesiastical ban on publishing any of her writings in print or online remains in force. As such, I don't want them to appear on my blog. I'm not going to post up Fr. Iannuzzi's rather uncharitable response on my blog either, since he launches a personal attack against me, falsely claiming that I oppose the Magisterium of the Church (even though he obviously knows nothing about my writing) and he also accuses me of lying. I have contacted Fr. Iannuzzi's superior informing him of this situation, and am still waiting on a reply. The letter of suitability that Fr. Iannuzzi receives from his superior each year is not a formal endorsement of his writing. If Fr. Iannuzzi's superior endorsed his writing, his books would bear his superior's imprimi potest, along with the accompanying nihil obstat, declaring his works to be free of doctrinal error, as Canon 832 requires of members of religious institutes. The Archbishop of Trani also made it abundantly clear that he does not endorse Fr. Iannuzzi's work in his letter to me: "this priest does not belong to this Archdiocese and did not receive from me any authorization, permission or warrant of any kind and in relation to publications both in reference to the study and dissemination". He might have received the Archbishop's endorsement at one stage, before the doctrinal errors in Fr. Iannuzzi's books became clear to him. But certainly since Fr. Iannuzzi's personal correspondence with the Archbishop of Trani in 2003, the Archbishop has not endorsed any of his work. In fact, the moratorium was placed on Luisa's writings precisely because of the theological difficulties presented by some of the material, such as the passage you quoted. Fr. Iannuzzi certainly interprets Luisa's writings in a millenarian style that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. I don't appeal to my own authority on this subject, but rather the Catechism, which categorically rules out all types of millenarianism, even modified or mitigated forms (CCC 676).

Also, I am not in any way opposed to the writings of Luisa Piccarreta, as Fr. Iannuzzi claims. I am opposed to how they are being interpreted by Fr. Iannuzzi to support the millenarian idea of a "spiritual millennium" of peace on earth after an invisible "Middle Coming" of Christ, which is apparently to take place before His Second Coming. I'm sure the future critical edition of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta will address the theological difficulties that some of her material presents. Until it is published, we must respect the wishes of the Archbishop of Trani.

The Catechism categorically rules out the notion of a "golden age" of total peace on earth, which is "immanentizing the eschaton" (Voegelin) - "to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement" (CCC 676).

Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God." That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him: Maranatha! "Our Lord, come!"Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace. According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church and ushers in the struggles of the last days. (CCC 671-672)

You are are wrong when you say that the Church rules out a period of peace on earth prior to the Second Coming. In fact, at the approved apparition at Fatima, Our Blessed Mother used the very words "period of peace." Perhaps, Emmett, what you meant to say was that the Church rules out the Millennium which would be a coming of Christ in glory prior to the Second Coming. Please don't conflate the Millennium with the Era of Peace. Such a notion of a period of peace, restoration and unification is present in many approved prophecies. Numerous Popes have also hinted at it. And I have in my possession a book from 1952 titled The Teaching of the Catholic Church, which bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and which states the following:

"Another form of illusion in this great matter of Christ's second advent has been much more universal, much more persistent, and is, in a way, more easily forgivable. This form of religious dreaming is even older than the Gospels; it is man's hope of the millennium. It has always been the faith of certain pious people, whom the iniquities of the world have afflicted in their souls, that there would be on this earth some day a very magnificent kingdom of God. With the advent of Christianity it was, of course, Christ who would be the King of that happy era of human sanctity. It is not easy to contradict people and prove them to be wrong if they profess a hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things. Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not at all certain that there may not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end. The point of division between the legitimate aspirations of devout souls and the aberrations of false millenarism is this: the Chiliasts - as believers in the millennium are called, from the Greek word for thousand - seem to expect a coming of Christ and a presence of him in glory and majesty on this earth which would not be the consummation of all tings but would still be a portion of the history of mankind. This is not consonant with Catholic dogma. The coming of Christ int he second Advent - the Parousia, as it is is called technically - in orthodox Christianity is the consummation of all things, the end of human history. If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about, not by the apparition of the Person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church. The Chiliasts of all times and shades of opinion, and there are many to be found even today, seem to despair, not only of the world, but even of that dispensation of grace which was inaugurated at Pentecost; they expect from the visible presence of Christ a complete conversion of the world, as if such a happy result could not be otherwise brought about. They have still to learn the meaning of Christ's words to the Apostles: 'It is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you.'

The Catholic Church has full confidence in the present order of supernatural life, and if she sighs for the return of her Christ it is not because she despairs of the work he has done, but because she desires to see that work made manifest to all men, that it may appear what wondrous things Christ accomplished for man before his Ascension into heaven."

So, you see Emmett, a period of peace and triumphant Christianity is possible before the Second Coming. It is not the same thing as the Millennium. And it is sound Catholic teaching.

It's hard for some people to accept the notion of the era of peace because since the Freemason "Enlightenment" what was once known as Christendom has been plunged into darkness and division culminating in the violence of 20th century.

There used to be a time when the known world order was Catholic and there was no separation of Church from State. Those times were not times of universal peace, prosperity or the abolition of suffering but compared to tyranny of the Freemason world order, they were truly a golden age of humanity. I suspect that the coming era of peace will see the destruction of Freemasonry's deathgrip on world power and the reestablishment of the Church's authority in political sphere. As for what initiates the Era of Peace, I believe that it will be a worldwide miracle - a sort of Miracle of the Sun but on a worldwide level. Saint Faustina wrote in her diary that before the Second Coming, all light in the heavens will be extinguished and the Sign of the Cross will appear in the sky and light up the earth for a time. I believe that this will be the event that ushers in the period of peace and the restoration of the Church.

A period of peace before the final persecution/rebellion is both biblically and ecclesiastically evidenced, being related to the Katechon that restrains the full manifestation of the Antichrist.

It is entirely distinct from the "millennium" in Revelation 20, which the tradition of the Church since St. Augustine at least has near-unanimously understood as referring to the reign of the saints in the Church Triumphant, which is therefore contiguous with the entire epoch beginning with the resurrection of Jesus and terminating with the Eschaton, in other words the present "age", as a term marking an indefinite period of time between the first advent, when Christ’s kingdom was established, and his second advent.

During this span of time, writes Augustine, the devil is “prevented from the exercise of his whole power to seduce men” and the saints “reign with Christ” over his spiritual kingdom. When Christ returns, he will judge the living and the dead, and then will usher in the eternal state.

The magisterium has never defined the “millennium” St. John saw in his vision. It has only rejected certain interpretations of the term discerned to be in error, which include the belief that Christ will return to earth at the climax of a long period of righteousness and peace arrived at by means of a "historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy". This is not an acceptable position for a Catholic to hold.

The prophesised "period of peace", which I do absolutely believe in, is actually referring to 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 (NRSV):

"...Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters,[a] you do not need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!..."

One of the signs of the End Times is that people say "There is peace and security", before "sudden destruction" comes - that is, the rebellion of Antichrist, who is described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as "the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction".

In other words, a period of peace and security precedes the "labour pains" that will ultimately lead to the Final Persecution. In her Book of Divine Works, St. Hildegard contends that the original Pax Christiana inaugurated by the Great Monarch and the other secular princes will gradually decay into a "lazy peace" characterised by lethargic religiosity, brought about by the absence of conflict and the abundance of temporal needs. And then, as men become self-assured in the permanence of this "peace and security," it will suddenly be brought crashing down by "precursors of Antichrist" who she describes as disciples of Baal, the "birth pangs", after the Katechon (who enables the peace to take place and has traditionally been identified, according to the Church Fathers with the Holy Roman Emperor and the Roman Empire) is taken out of the way.

This is the verse that St. Bonaventure relied upon in his exegesis to justify his belief in a future "great peace" before the Eschaton in his Collations on the Hexaemeron (1273)

"...The seventh time or age, that of quiet, begins with the shout of the angel who "swore through Him who lives forever and ever that there would be no more time; but in the days of the seventh angel the mystery of God will be completed" (Rev. 10:&-7)...It is necessary that One Ruler, a defender of the Church, arise. After him will come the darkness of tribulations...No one knows how long that time of great peace will last since ''when they said 'Peace and security,' then suddenly destruction came upon them" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3)..."

The Peace has nothing to do with a "spiritual millennium" that will persist until Christ's Second Coming after the fall of Antichrist or a progressive upward spike in holiness culminating in such an epoch, rather it has to do with the Katechon which/who restrains the full manifestation of Antichrist and the peace spoken of by St. Paul which precedes Antichrist.

From what I've read about them, Luisa's writings seem very strange to me and similar to the errors of Joachim of Fiore regarding a new age of the Spirit. We already have all we need in Sacred Scripture, the sacraments, and the teaching of the Church. Even if the Church eventually approves Luisa's writings, we don't need them to become holy. My own opinion is that they are a sort of Gnosticism. I will spend my time studying Scripture, the true and sure Word of God.

Also, Emmet, I pray that you have a happy Easter and that God will bless you abundantly.You are doing good work here; I enjoy your blog. I think it is good to have an open discussion about the status of Fr Iannuzzi's book; certainly people may disagree about this but there is room for differences of opinion. Also your case stands on its merits; if you are wrong, a thousand theologians saying you are right won't make any difference. And if you are right, a thousand theologians saying you are wrong won't make any difference. I wouldn't read too much into the endorsements given to Iannuzzi's book by various bishops. That is a standard practice in the publishing world and it's doubtful they combed through it and agreed with every word. They are basically just saying that he's made a contribution to the discussion, which he has, but that doesn't mean they agree with all his opinions.

Thanks Sr. Lorraine! I'm sure that those bishops who endorsed Fr. Iannuzzi's books were not fully aware of the full implications of his work as a whole. I also want to reiterate that I hold Fr. Iannuzzi in high esteem, given his wholehearted dedication to Christ in his priestly vocation. However, I feel that it is my duty to oppose him on this issue, since his exposition of a future spiritual millennial reign of Christ on earth contradicts the clear and constant teaching of the Church on matters of eschatology.

Yes, I agree with you about there being room for differences of opinion on Fr. Iannuzzi. I even agree that Emmett's research and publication can be of benefit to the Church. And yes, Emmett is under no obligation as a Catholic to agree that there will be an era of peace. Where Emmett goes too far, though, is in saying that the notion of an era of peace contradicts official Catholic doctrine, or that Fr. Iannuzzi's book contradicts official Catholic doctrine. It is one thing for someone to say they don't agree with Fr. Iannuzzi; it is quite another to say that he is promoting something that contradicts Catholic teaching.

And I forgot to say, I would be interested to know what you meant by "gnostic" in regard to Luisa Piccarreta. I am not interested in trying to change your mind or pursuing the point further, I just wasn't sure what you meant by the term.

I'm just wondering what you would think if it turned out that Fr Iannuzzi's book that promotes an era of peace was actually given the Imprimi Potest by his superior? Would you say that that religious superior was mistaken as well?

And what if the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith were to say that the Church does not condemn the notion of an era of peace (I am not talking about a literal one thousand year reign, or a coming of Jesus in the flesh and in glory to reign on the earth for a time prior to the final judgement--that is quite different)? Would you still insist that you are right on this matter, and that the Prefect is wrong? I am just wondering how far you would go down this path.

Brendan, if the imprimi potest was granted, then it would be extremely odd that it would not appear in print at the start of the book where imprimatur usually goes. The whole point is to assure readers that nothing in the book is contrary to doctrine. We'll soon find out anyway. If the CDF categorically stated that the notion of a future extended era of temporal peace, wherein Satan was chained and evil completely banished from the face of the earth, was within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, then of course I must submit in obedience with humility.For the CDF to do so, it would have to overturn the Catechism's condemnation of millenarianism. Given the fact that you have a PhD in philosophy, I am interested to hear your take on Fr. Iannuzzi's definition of the word millenarianism. You will know the importance of semiotics in this regard. Fr. Iannuzzi uses this word millenarianism solely in its archaic sense, in that it refers only the coming of Christ in the Flesh to establish a future millennial reign, and that a spiritual, invisible coming of Christ to establish such a future reign has not been ruled out. However, the Catechism clearly uses the word millenarianism in the modern academic sense of the word, in that it refers to any sort of future utopian period. It is clearly influenced by Norman Cohn's seminal 1957 book The Pursuit of the Millennium, in which he identified Nazism and Communism as secular types of millenarianism. Which in turn was influenced by the thought of Eric Voegelin. So all types of millenarianism are ruled out, including secular forms, not just Christ coming in the Flesh.

Below is Norman Cohn's appraisal of the definition of millenarianism as used in the modern academic sense of the word. Cohn was one of the most influential scholars of the 20th century to specialise in the area of millenarianism, and his work had a clear influence on Cardinal Ratzinger when he composed the section in the Catechism condemning millenarian beliefs:

"... in recent years it has become customary amongst anthropologists and sociologists, and to some extent amongst historians too, to use the word 'millenarianism' in a more liberal sense still. The word has in fact become simply a convenient label for a particular type of salvationism. And that is the way it will be employed in this book.Millenarian sects or movements always picture salvation as(a) collective, in the sense that it is to be enjoyed by the faithful as a collectivity;(b) terrestrial, in the sense that it is to be realized on this earth and not in some other-worldly heaven;(c) imminent, in the sense that it is to come both soon and suddenly;(d) total, in the sense that it is utterly to transform life on earth, so that the new dispensation will be no mere improvement on the present but perfection itself;(e) miraculous, in the sense that it is to be accomplished by, or with the help of, supernatural agencies.Even within these limits there is of course room for infinite variety: there are countless possible ways of imagining the Millennium and the route to it. Millenarian sects and movements have varied in attitude from the most violent aggressiveness to the mildest pacifism and from the most ethereal spirituality to the most earthbound materialism. And they have also varied greatly in social composition and social function.There was certainly great variety amongst the millenarian sects and movements of medieval Europe. At the one extreme were the so-called 'Franciscan Spirituals' who flourished in the thirteenth century."(Cohn, N. The Pursuit of the Millennium, pp15-16 OUP, Oxford, 1957)

Hello Brendan,Thank you for responding to my comment. I do agree that having a difference of opinion is one thing and to say someone is promoting an idea contrary to Catholic teaching is another. It might be that the point at issue about the millennium needs to be clarified to see which ideas about it are in accord with Catholic teaching. To be honest the various ideas about the millennium can get rather confusing. About Luisa, I haven't analyzed her writings and am no expert on them, by any means. What I meant is this: I saw a quote in which Jesus supposedly told her that by the gift of living in the Divine Will he was doing something greater than the sacraments, which are material. That set off some alarm bells in my mind, since the tenor of the quote (I can't find it now) and the context seemed to suggest a certain disdain for the flesh and for the material. But as the saying goes, from Tertullian if I recall correctly, "the flesh is the hinge of salvation." In Catholic teaching, matter matters, because of incarnational reality. Luisa's purported revelation struck me as being gnostic from that point of view. I do realize Luisa's works are being investigated and that quote may not be an accurate translation.But another aspect that struck me as gnostic is the idea of secret knowledge, something for the initiated and not for ordinary people. I read some people saying things like Luisa was the holiest person since the Blessed Virgin, etc., and how Jesus brought redemption but now we will have sanctification--as if he doesn't sanctify us through the Church and the sacraments--strikes me as very odd indeed. Since by definition private revelation is private, Catholics are not obliged to accept it. So Luisa's revelations, if authentic, would be only for those who choose to accept it. But the true means of salvation, like faith and the sacraments, are not optional.Emmett probably doesn't want this to turn into a thread on Luisa herself, but this is just to respond to your query. Also, since it's a matter of private revelation, how do we know it is authentic, and even if it is, that Luisa interpreted it correctly? Fr Groeschel in his book "A Still, Small Voice" has very helpful points about discerning private revelation. It is always filtered through the mind of the receiver, who may misinterpret or miss the point.Thank you, Brendan, and God bless you!

To follow up with Sr Marianne's comments:I think people tend to give too much importance to private revelation. But even those approved by the Church are still tertiary (Scripture, then Tradition). Plus even approved revelations aren't supposed to add to, subtract from, or contradict what the Holy Spirit has already revealed through Scripture and Tradition. I haven't read much at all about Luisa's revelations, but even if approved, I don't have to believe them.As far as the period of peace, Emmett does believe there will be one (he discusses this in his book), but it will be very short, 10-25 years, certainly not 1000. What Emmett is cautioning against (I believe) is believing that the upcoming period of peace will be a literal 1000 years and also a "heaven on earth" like many Evangelical Christians advocate.

I pretty much agree with your first point; I make a point of reading Luisa's writings not as something added to public revelation but as explicating or drawing out something that is already given to the Church in public revelation in the form of Christ.

Anyway, this thread is about the putative "era of peace". On my understanding, the Magisterium rules against a LITERAL heaven on earth prior to the final judgement etc. There are secular and supernatural versions of this idea; I will deal with the latter first. To say there will be time when there will literally be heaven on earth, where this "heaven" is understood as a supernatural gift from God, is problematic for several reasons. (1) It does away with the need for supernatural hope, (2) takes away the possibility of falling away from God (since in heaven no-one is in a position to fall away from God) (3) implies that the beatific vision is given as permanent gift to everyone who inhabits the earth in that time.

If there is an extended "era of peace" in the future, it cannot involve a generally granted beatific vision, or the removal of the possibility of falling away from God. There would still have to be an eschatological "not yet" in which we anticipate, in hope, the face to face vision of God.

Nor could this era of peace (if it occurs) begin with the physical coming of Christ (as opposed to a spiritual, Eucharistic reign of Christ). For when Christ reveals himself again publically and generally in bodily form, it will be in glory, and it will be the final judgement.

We must also rule out the chiliastic notion that the happiness granted in the era of peace will consist in excesses of physical pleasure.

As for the "secular" version of "heaven on earth" (think of Marxism, or John Lennon's "Imagine"), this directly contradicts the notion that God alone is our fulfilment, and that grace alone enables us to do good either individually or collectively. Again, it does away with the need for supernatural hope.

In sum: the era of peace, if it occurs, cannot be thought in secularist terms (that would be Pelagianism), in crudely hedonistic terms, or in "finalistic" terms (collapsing the eschatological tension that makes falling away from God possible and supernatural hope necessary).

In my view, the basic notion of an era of peace does not imply any of these (secularism, crude hedonism, "finalism") in and of itself. There are two arguments for this claim. The first argument proceeds by showing that there is no necessary connection between the general notion of an era of peace, and any of these heretical positions (I will not pursue that here). The second argument is a reductio ad absurdum. I provide an initial sketch of this argument below.

[continued]Suppose that the notion of an era of peace is inherently problematic--that by its very essence it demands something against God's order and wisdom. In that case, God original plan for Creation did not include an extended era of peace (for God would not plan something against His order and wisdom). But surely, God's intention for Creation was for there to be perfect peace, and for an extended period of time. Therefore the notion of an era of peace is not inherently problematic.

One might respond as follows. It is true that God's original intention for Creation was for there to be perfect peace at all times. However, what God actually wills for Creation is different, given that there has been a Fall.

However, that implies either (a) that God is not able to ensure absolutely that there will be an era of peace, given the Fall and human freedom or (b) that God is not willing to ensure absolutely that there will be an era of peace on earth.

The problem with (a) is that this gives man the power to thwart God's original purpose for Creation. True, an individual man has the power to resist God's grace working in his individual life. But no man has the power to thwart God's providence at a general level, or God's ultimate purpose for mankind. The other problem with (a) is that it limits the infinite power of grace made available through the sacrifice of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (as mediated sacramentally in the Church).

What about (b)? Why would God not be willing to ensure an era of peace? It could not be because such a thing is inherently disordered (that has already been refuted). The only possibility left is that God is not willing to ensure an era of peace at some point in history, because of man's current condition.

But this is not how the economy of grace works. In view of Christ's perfect life and sacrifice, and in view of Mary's perfect obedience, the Father is willing to make available all manner of graces, and man's current condition is not an obstacle to this.

Someone might say that "God is not willing to ensure an era of peace at some point in history, because of man's current condition--and this condition will never change in the right way, or to the right extent, to make way for the era of peace. God will not give such a gift (general peace) to mankind unless man is receptive to it. But man will never be appropriately and sufficiently receptive to it."

But this is a false idea. God has always been able to raise up holy men and women from out of a human race in the throes of rebellion. And it is for the sake of such as these that the era of peace will be granted. Their receptivity will be sufficient to bring about the reign of the Divine Will, since the Divine Will will itself be operating in them.

Thanks for your helpful clarifications!I agree we have to be prudent when it comes to private revelation.I really like the idea that the ultimate mouthpiece of private revelation is the Church herself-if and when the Church accepts it as part of her living tradition. (I came across this idea in a book by Stephen Patton on Luisa).

Brendan,Thank you for your clarification. I understand much better where you are coming from. As far as the idea of the period of peace being rather short, Exodus provides a good guide to this. Not much time passed from the miraculous deliverance of the Israelites until they made the golden calf. Human nature hasn't changed since Biblical times. Even during the era of peace, the temptation to sin will still be there and it won't take long for people to lapse back into sin. Look at how quickly St. Peter denied knowing Jesus, probably less than 12 hours after the Last Supper.I have not read anything about Luisa's revelations or Fr. Iannuzzi's book, so I cannot comment about those. I'll wait and see what the Church ultimately decides on Luisa.

Anon,Stephen Walford has already demonstrated at length that the book you cited "The Teachings of the Catholic Church", has absolutely no authority. You will have to trawl through the debate on the MoG forum to find it if you don't have his book Communion of Saints. Besides, it was written well before the Church's teachings on millenarianism became fully explicit in the Catechism, when it was published in 1991. It includes the following passage, which rules out an extended period of triumphant Christianity such as that proposed by Fr. Iannuzzi (i.e. spiritual millenarianism): "The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world." (CCC 677)The Catechism teaches that the triumph of the Church on earth will be in its final Passover during the persecution of the Antichrist, not during an extended period of triumphant sanctity. The triumph is the way of the Cross, not the establishment of a millenarian style earthly kingdom. Besides, Christ taught that the end of the world will come immediately after the proclamation of the Gospel to the ends of the earth during the New Pentecost. So there can't be a gap of a spiritual millennium in between.

The 1952 book, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. You can't discount it and neither can Walford.

Once again you are conflating Millenarianism with the era of peace. The section of the Cathechism you keep posting has nothing to do with an era of peace. It is talking about the second coming and the fullfillment of the Kingdom. By definition, a period of peace is not a fullfillment of peace. Triumphant Christianity and progressive ascendancy are two different things. There have been periods of Triumphant Christianity in the past and there may well be a period or periods of Trimphant Christianity in the future. Our Lady in an approved apparition at Fatima also promised that there would be a period of peace. I'll take her word over yours, Emmett.

If Father Iannuzzi is guilty of dabbling in spiritual millenarianism then you, Emmett, are guilty of the oppostite extreme: denying the period of peace.

to the April 21 10:50 poster where it says:'In fact, at the approved apparition at Fatima, Our Blessed Mother used the very words "period of peace."'

As I posted before Our Lady technically said, "...some time of peace" as recorded by Lucia, not "period of peace". It has been translated as "period of peace" but as always things get distorted in translation.

People keep debating the era of peace, but where does the notion of an era of peace come from? Can someone please list here where we get the idea of an era of peace? I know some have misconstrued this from what Our Lady said at Fatima, but where else does this come from?

Thanks for stepping into the debate Greg! Brendan, the Church rules out any kind of millenarianism, even mitigated or modified forms. Do you agree that the Catechism specifically focuses on the secular forms of millenarianism (i.e. Nazism and Communism) in its condemnation?

Even then, hours after the morning’s consecration ceremony, the Pope acknowledged in a public prayer to Our Lady of Fatima that the consecration which She had asked for is yet to be done. In his prayer, he drew Her attention once again to this certain group of peoples (the peoples of Russia) that has a special need of being consecrated – a group of peoples, he said: “for whom You Yourself await our act of consecration and of entrustment.”

The important question is: What exactly does the CCC mean by "millenarianism" when it rules out "mitigated" or "modified" forms of millenarianism?

676 of CCC says"The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism [footnote here, referring to Denzinger 3839], especially the 'intrinsically perverse' political form of a secular messianism."

2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.

The Presence of Christ in the Mysteries of the Church *

[From the Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]

[end quote]

This gives the impression that "mitigated millenarianism" includes, as an essential part of its definition, the claim that Christ will come again in physical form before the Final Judgement to rule over the world. I take it that "mitigated" means that the crudely hedonistic and "worldly" form that millenarianism took in early Christian times has been left behind. Mitigated millenarianism still maintains the core millenarian idea of Jesus' physical (as opposed to sacramental) coming as Lord on earth in some future millenium.

The fundamental idea of millenarianism, as understood by Christian writers, may be set forth as follows: At the end of time Christ will return in all His splendour to gather together the just, to annihilate hostile powers, and to found a glorious kingdom on earth for the enjoyment of the highest spiritual and material blessings; He Himself will reign as its king, and all the just, including the saints recalled to life, will participate in it. At the close of this kingdom the saints will enter heaven with Christ, while the wicked, who have also been resuscitated, will be condemned to eternal damnation. The duration of this glorious reign of Christ and His saints on earth, is frequently given as one thousand years. Hence it is commonly known as the "millennium", while the belief in the future realization of the kingdom is called "millenarianism" (or "chiliasm", from the Greek chilia, scil. ete).

This term of one thousand years, however, is by no means an essential element of the millennium as conceived by its adherents. The extent, details of the realization, conditions, the place, of the millennium were variously described. Essential are the following points:

the early return of Christ in all His power and glory, the establishment of an earthly kingdom with the just, the resuscitation of the deceased saints and their participation in the glorious reign, the destruction of the powers hostile to God, and, at the end of the kingdom, the universal resurrection with the final judgment, after which the just will enter heaven, while the wicked will be consigned to the eternal fire of hell.

[end quote].

By this definition, Fr. Iannuzzi does not teach millenarianism. Nor does he even teach mitigated millenarianism. I admit that his references to the future "millenium" may be misleading to some--but not if his books are read in their entirety.

Emmett, would you admit that it is possible that the CCC is using the more narrow definition of "millenarianism" here in its condemnation of that doctrine (the more narrow definition requires a proponent of millenarianism to agree that Christ will come again in physical form to rule the earth for some time; if someone does not agree to that, he is not a millenarianist; he is not even a "mitigated" one.)?

If you do not, why do you not? What evidence can you give that the CCC is using a broader definition, so that certain teachings of Mark Mallett, Fr. Gobbi and Fr. Iannuzzi are condemned as "unable to be taught safely", as you have claimed?

Returning now to CCC676. The notion of an "era of peace", as taught by Mallett et al, does not include the idea that in this life we will see the realization of the "messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement." For the era of peace is not understood to include the beatific vision, or the removal of the possibility of sin, or the final certainty of salvation. Indeed, it is often claimed that some people will fall away at the end of the era of peace.

Finally, to answer your question Emmett. I don't believe the CCC focuses specifically on the secular forms of millenarianism ("millenarianism" in the narrow sense). There is a "non-secular" form of millenarianism (in the narrow sense), which the Church also condemns. A non-secular form of millenarianism, as I explained in my previous long post, would be the idea that (a) humanity cannot, by its own power or reason, or political force, create a perfect society, and that (b) God will intervene powerfully to create a perfect society by sending his Son again to rule the earth directly and in person (not just sacramentally). This is the premillenialism popular amongst certain Protestants today (see href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.cfm" here --and these Christian can hardly be called "secular". Indeed, it is often said that their pessimism about human progress is what motivates their premillenial views.

Brendan, if the Catechism wasn't exactly precise about its use of the term millenarianism, then I would certainly admit that it could be using it in the narrow sense of Christ coming physically to reign with the saints on earth for the Millennium. The Catholic Encyclopaedia certainly only uses the word millenarianism in this narrow sense, since it was composed at the turn of the 20th century. The 1944 Decree of the Holy Office also only used the word in this narrow sense. So I can see why Fr. Iannuzzi, Mallett et al believe that a spiritualised form of the millenarianism espoused by some of the Church Fathers is an acceptable teaching, since this doesn't involve the physical presence of Christ. As Norman Cohn notes in his book Pursuit of the Millennium, it is only relatively recently that the word millenarianism has broadened in scope within academic circles to include a much wider array of similar beliefs. This is why the various Joachimite groups of the Middle Ages are classified as millenarian sects, even though they did not teach a physical coming of Jesus, but rather an "age of the Spirit".The key question is if the Catechism is using the word millenarianism only in this narrow sense. If so, then Fr. Iannuzzi's thesis on a "spiritual millennium" is indeed an acceptable position. However, we can know for a certain fact that the Catechism is using the word millenarianism in the modern academic sense by its identification of the worst form of millenarianism as "secular messianism": "The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the 'intrinsically perverse' political form of a secular messianism." CCC 676.The term "secular messianism" is derived from the political philosophy of Hermann Cohen, and refers to the idea that a secular state can establish a utopian society separate from organised religion. So the type of millenarianism that the Catechism condemns most vehemently is one that is absolutely without Christ at all, but rather the creation of a utopian society by a secular state through the implementation of an extreme political ideology. Therefore, the Catechism is definitely using the word millenarianism in the modern, broader academic sense, and is not just condemning the idea of the physical coming of Christ to establish an earthly utopia.

There is another footnote (number 578) in the Catechism after the word "secular messianism" which makes it abundantly clear that it is singling out the extreme atheistic ideologies of the 20th century as the worst types of millenarianism. The footnote in question runs as follows: "578 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21." Pope Pius XI's Divini Redemptoris focused entirely on the dangers of atheistic Communism, and was published in 1937 five days after the Mit brennender Sorge encyclical that condemned the German Nazi regime and ideology. So the term "secular messianism" is specifically linked to the atheistic ideologies of Nazism and Communism. To make it doubly clear that it is these atheistic ideologies that are being identified as the worst types of millenarianism, the footnote in the Catechism also directs us to confer with passages 20-21 of the conciliar document Gaudium et spes ("cf. GS 20-21"). The relevant section runs as follows:

"Modern atheism often takes on a systematic expression which, in addition to other causes, stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God. Those who profess atheism of this sort maintain that it gives man freedom to be an end unto himself, the sole artisan and creator of his own history. They claim that this freedom cannot be reconciled with the affirmation of a Lord Who is author and purpose of all things, or at least that this freedom makes such an affirmation altogether superfluous. Favoring this doctrine can be the sense of power which modern technical progress generates in man.Not to be overlooked among the forms of modern atheism is that which anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation. This form argues that by its nature religion thwarts this liberation by arousing man's hope for a deceptive future life, thereby diverting him from the constructing of the earthly city. Consequently when the proponents of this doctrine gain governmental power they vigorously fight against religion, and promote atheism by using, especially in the education of youth, those means of pressure which public power has at its disposal.21. In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated(16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence.Still, she strives to detect in the atheistic mind the hidden causes for the denial of God; conscious of how weighty are the questions which atheism raises, and motivated by love for all men, she believes these questions ought to be examined seriously and more profoundly..."

Therefore the Catechism is not only condemning the idea of Christ coming visibly to rule over the earth with the resurrected saints, but all types of millenarianism: "every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment". Once again, the above passage is directly derived from Eric Voeglin's concept of "immanentizing the eschaton", who argued that the ideologies of Nazism and Communism sought to create a sort of heaven on earth within history. Cardinal Ratzinger's influences are quite clear here. It is every time the claim is made to realize the messianic hope within history that the Church is condemning, not just whether it includes the visible presence of Christ - Nazism and Communism obviously didn't advocate a physical coming of Jesus. So there can not be any exceptions for what Fr. Iannuzzi et al teaches just because they "spiritualize" the presence of Christ in their posited earthly utopia. The "spiritual millennium" theory is definitely a type of millenarianism according to the modern academic sense of the word, just as Nazism and Communism are. It meets all of the criteria laid out by Norman Cohn I quoted above, in that it is(a) collective,(b) terrestrial,(c) imminent,(d) total,(e) miraculous.

I can understand how one would come to the conclusion that you have, based on the wording of CCC 676. But a broader view rules out that interpretation.

But let's look at the immediate context of CCC 676.675 speaks of a "supreme religious deception ... that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God... ".

676 adds a further comment to 675. Its purpose is to condemn the falsification of eschatological hope; it emphasises that our final hope will only be realised in heaven. The condemnation of secular messianism makes sense in that context-as does the rejection of the notion of a "progressive ascendency" of the Church which would supposedly result in the ultimate glory of the Church on this earth (par 677).

The single point being made in these passages is that our final hope, and the ultimate realisation of the Kingdom, are realised only after the final judgement.All of the quotes that you have provided above illustrate the same point--that the Church rejects all forms of "immanentism" (my term)--the collapsing of eschatological hope into intra-historical expectation.

1. Is Iannuzzi's notion of an "era of peace" an example of "immanentism" as I have defined it here? I have argued that it is not. If you think otherwise, Emmett, please give reasons for that view.

2. CCC676 says that the Church has rejected all forms of the "falsification of the kingdom to come" (which is what I mean by "immanentism"), even modified forms. Clearly, it is referring to past pronouncements/actions of the Church, and not claiming to put forth some new doctrine. The Catechism merely gathers and presents in an accessible form the statements of the Magisterium. It would be wrong to expect a new condemnation of a particular position to arise for the first time in a Catechism. If in the magisterial exercise of the Church prior to CCC (1994), there is no example of an official condemnation of the notion of an era of peace as such, either directly, or by clear implication then surely, CCC676 does not condemn the notion of an era of peace as such.But none of the passages referred to in 676 (or 675, or 677) include such a condemnation.

After reading your mode of argumentation, it seems to me that you are treating (falsely) the Catechism of 1994 as a document that puts into effect a certain doctrinal pronouncement for the first time.

If you are not, please bring to my attention the relevant passage from a previous magisterial pronouncement that condemns the notion of an "era of peace" directly or by implication.

It says in a post above: "For the era of peace is not understood to include..."

The era of peace as a concept is being discussed here as a given so again my question, which steps back: where does the idea of an era of peace come from?

Jesus is already here sacramentally and has been ever since He instituted the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, in which He is truly present with us until the end of time, as He promised. And Jesus' saying Matt 28:20: Behold, I am with you always is the promise of Jesus’ real though invisible presence and it echoes the name Emmanuel given to him in the infancy narrative, as the USCCB version footnote says - i.e. Jesus has been and is with us right now.

Also Christ IS in physical form - He took a body, flesh and blood. We say He is present with us in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - the Real Presence.

To say there will be a spiritual reign of Christ is a conflicted thought and denies Christ's PHYSICAL presence already amongst us in the Holy Eucharist. (In contrast, the Holy Spirit is with us in spiritual form since the Holy Spirit has no physical body.)

Christ has a body; when He comes, His body comes too. And He has been and is with us now.

If Jesus was going to come in some special way before the Second Coming, a way other than how He is here, now with us, He would have told us while He walked amongst us. He did not, because He is not coming like that.( Secret knowledge is gnosticism.) Christ spoke openly; explained it to His apostles, as did the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

It is why I ask again where does this idea of an era of peace come from? - it is certainly not in the Bible. And to ADD it to public revelation via private apparitions such as Fatima is not permitted.

Bibilically, Jesus taught only of two comings. The ancient Jewish wedding provides a type for God's coming to us as the bridegroom for His people, the bride. There was the betrothal-type ceremony, followed up to a year later with the consummation of the wedding when the groom returned from his father's house to take his bride there. He DID NOT come to the bride between the betrothal and final consummation parts of the wedding; he remained apart. He might send a personal friend - an advocate - before his return, and likewise Jesus our bridegroom sent us the Holy Spirit, the Advocate to help us and guide us before His return.

From chapter 1 of the book "A While Longer":

We see the first and second Comings of Jesus as two distinct events but it is actually one event in two parts, which mirrors the traditional Jewish wedding. In the first part of the Jewish wedding, erusin, the bride and groom are betrothed. At nisuin, the second part of the marriage ceremony, the wedding feast and consummation take place, and in ancient times this could happen a year after erusin. Between erusin and nisuin, the bride and groom remained in their respective homes, preparing for the second part of the wedding. Considered fully and legally married although living apart, the couple could separate only with a bill of divorce. It was one marriage fulfilled in two parts. Even today the traditional Jewish wedding retains the two distinct parts, although they happen on the same day.

The Jewish wedding mirrors the marriage between God and His people. Most of the laws and customs about the wedding ceremony, its preparations and the wedding banquet date back to the Jewish Patriarchs and the giving of the Torah at Sinai. Sometimes the Chassidic wedding invitation reminds the guests of the wedding’s significance:

"In the merit of bringing joy and happiness to the bride and groom, may we see the reaffirmation of the bond between God Almighty (the groom) and the Jewish people (the bride) with the coming of the righteous Messiah imminently in our days."

Jesus often used marriage metaphors when speaking about His kingdom, and He identified Himself as the bridegroom:

"…some people came to him and said to him, ‘Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?’ Jesus replied, ‘Surely the bridegroom’s attendants cannot fast while the bridegroom is still with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then, on that day, they will fast." (Mark 2:18-20)

Between erusin and nisuin, the groom returned to his father’s house and prepared a place for his bride. The preparation lasted about a year, and after all was ready he returned. Following this custom, Jesus told His disciples He would return for His bride, the people of God:

"In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be." John 14:2-3

Brendan, The CDF notification against Vassula Ryden in 1995 said the idea of an era of peace is a "doctrinal error". It specifically highlighted the imminent expectation of the coming of the Antichrist before the "era of peace" .Of course-as I am sure you know, the CCC clearly states the Antichrist will only come before the Last Judgement-forming the final persecution of the Church. I quote " In millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final, glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ's definitive coming, ah era of peace and universal prosperity." Brendan, notice it says "millenarian style". The doctrinal error then is not chiliasm in this case, but a"final glorious intervention". That is exactly what fr Iannuzzi proposes is it not?Stephen Walford

Our wedding ceremony forms a covenant between man and woman - marriage is a covenant. And God "married" His people at Sinai in the Old Covenant; Jesus likewise as the bridegroom "married" His bride in the New Covenant. Note that the covenants are formed in sacrificial blood, as seen in the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood at Sinai, and Jesus' giving up His blood - the blood of the New Covenant.

The marriage covenant is sacrificial - we die to self and become one with the other. Separate John and separate Sue become one flesh, united until death. At the Lord's Supper, the true Passover happened - the cross becoming the blood-stained lintel and post door out of bondage and into Heaven.

But the Lord's Supper is also the marriage between Jesus and His people, the Church.

Continuing from chapter 1 of "A While Longer":

In the ancient Jewish wedding ritual, wine played a prominent role, and in the modern Jewish wedding wine is still used in the blessings given at erusin and nisuin.

In the ancient form the bridegroom and his father would meet with the bride’s family and present a ketubah, or wedding contract, to the intended bride and her father. The young man would pour a cup of wine, and if the bride-to-be accepted the proposal she drank from the cup. In the current form of the wedding the erusin or engagement rite is a simple ceremony marked by two blessings given by the presiding rabbi while holding a cup of wine.

The first blessing over the wine is said at almost all joyous occasions:

"Blessed are You, Lord our God, Master of the Universe, Who creates the fruit of the vine."

The second blessing is specific for the wedding ceremony: "Blessed are You, Lord our God, Master of the universe, Who has made us holy through His Commandments, and commanded us regarding illicit relations, and has forbidden to us the betrothed, and has permitted to us those whom we have married through Chupah and Kiddushin; Blessed are You, Lord our God, Who makes His people Israel holy through Chupah and Kiddushin."

After completing the second blessing the rabbi gives the cup of wine to the groom, who drinks from it. The cup is presented to the bride, who drinks from it, symbolizing her commitment to share her life with the groom and his family from that moment.

As priest and Rabbi at the Last Supper, Jesus performed the erusin ceremony with Himself as the groom and the disciples, the seeds of His Church, as the bride:

"Then he took a cup [of wine], gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it." Mark 14:23

At every Catholic Mass, this ritual is re-presented to remind us that the Church is the bride of Christ and that we have committed ourselves to remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus our Groom, teachings which come from His Father. The priest, in the person of the Groom, takes the cup and drinks from it. Then the cup is presented to the bride in turn and when we drink from it we proclaim our union with the family of God. Catholics believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus, making it a complete communion of bride and groom.

At Sinai, Moses sprinkled the sacrificial blood of the Old Covenant on the altar and the people of God. At the altar at each Mass, the people of God receive the sacrificial offering of the body and blood of the New (renewed) Covenant, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus.

Nisuin takes place with seven blessings over a cup of wine. Various Rabbis and relatives give these blessings; the one who offers the blessing is the first to drink from the cup, followed by the groom and then his bride.

Nisuin between the Messiah and His people is still to come. Jesus has not returned from His Father’s house to claim His bride, and Jesus said as much at the Last Supper:

"Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Mark 14:25

In other words, He will drink it again when the kingdom of God is completely fulfilled upon His return. We are in the period between the two parts of the wedding. We are the bride awaiting the groom’s return to consummate the wedding at nisuin.

So we see the Jewish wedding as a type for God's coming to us in "marriage" - He comes twice, and only twice.God bless,Greg J Cring

Jesus' coming aligns with that of the Jewish wedding. Jesus Himself said He is the bridegroom, and that He would go to the Father and then come back for us, His bride, to take us to His Father's house which has many rooms; this is the same as happens in a Jewish wedding of His day.

The idea of a millenarian style era of peace was not taught by Jesus to His bride, the Church, which has the full deposit of the faith.

And so neither does the Church teach it.

And so I belabor the point: where does the notion of a millenarian style era of peace come from? If not from the Church, then from who?

we are on the verge of potentially uncovering a major scandal within the Church, one whose gangrene imperils the very heart of the Church itself.At odds are two seemingly disconnected yet unfortunately linked circumstances.

First, the sacking (and politically driven re-instatement) of Maltese Grand Chancellor Albrecht von Boeselager over his emphatic defense of pushing contraception on the poor after explicitly promising he would not do so, having been caught in such a scandal once before.

The second part is perhaps more disturbing than the first. It has now come to light the Boeslager was reinstated at the insistence of Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin, just four days after the Order of Malta's Grand Master Fra' Festing is ordered by Pope Francis to resign.

Lepanto's investigation into this odd occurrence of events has arrived at a deadly serious juncture, one in which we several leads that could lead to greater implications...

What we can reveal is this -- that the "commission" created by the Vatican Secretary of State centered exclusively on a multi-million dollar trust fund with uncertain origins. Cardinal Perolin knew of about this dark money, and Boeslager very early in his election did everything in his power to try to create a means of getting this money into the Order of Malta... a move which his predecessor rejected (and for good reason).

Immediately after Fra' Festing was forced to resign, a deposit of €30 million (US$32.6 mil) was made to the Vatican Bank. From our report:The fact of the matter is that Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, is the point of contact and source of information in every incident related to the crisis in the Order of Malta. It was Cardinal Parolin who appointed the members of the investigating commission. It was Cardinal Parolin who spoke on behalf of Pope Francis in a letter to Fra Festing on December 12, expressing his disappointment at the “unpleasant and perilous turn taken by events.” Speaking on behalf of Pope Francis in his letter, Cardinal Parolin said, “His Holiness asked that dialogue be the approach used to address and resolve potential problems. He never mentioned, conversely, expelling anyone.” Most interesting of all is that since the announcement of the commission, Pope Francis is never quoted anywhere, but only ever spoken on behalf of by Cardinal Parolin. Where did this money come from? How was it aggregated? What was its source? Why so much pressure to get the Vatican to accept this "gift"?

These are serious questions... ones that Boeslager and Parolin will not be able to evade in the coming months once the secular press gets hold of the facts.

I would only ask you this: please pray for all those involved. For Cardinal Burke, for Fra' Festing, for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta... but pray too for such men as Cardinal Parolin, von Boeslager, and most of all Pope Francis. Pray too for the members of the Order of Malta, who are now faced with a grave scandal which -- even with the reveal of this dark money being transferred -- only raises more questions than it answers.

Of course, much of this scandal comes on the heels of another bit of speculation: Pope Francis's possible abdication.

Most folks do not realize that Pope Francis is 80 -- old for most, but not too old for a pope (Pope St. Leo XIII lived to be 93).

What is unusual is the degree of speculation already being cast about by Vatican insiders who have already shown a proclivity for openly rumormongering against those loyal to the tradition of Pope Saint John Paul II and the Magisterium... and you'll never guess who they have in mind. From the UK Spectator's Damien Thompson:Allies of Pope Francis are saying that he’s planning to follow the example of Benedict XVI and retire. But he’ll only do so once he’s appointed enough liberal cardinals to make sure that the next conclave doesn’t elected a conservative who will interpret Catholic doctrine more strictly than he does.One of the rumored papabile? Cardinal Parolin.

The curious item in all of this -- once linked -- isn't curious at all. Faithful bishops and cardinals benched, the Order of Malta seized, the Vatican Bank under the control of certain individuals linked to the "Catholic Spring" and a papal retirement on the horizon?

You ask where the notion of the era of peace comes from? Answer: from the approved apparition at Fatima were Our Lady promised a period of peace, for starters. Where else is it mentioned? Perhaps in Scripture itself, as cited in the Catechism:

"The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by 'all Israel', for 'a hardening has come upon part of Israel' in their 'unbelief' toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: 'Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.' —CCC, n.674

"Times of refreshing." Clearly, not eternity for there is no time in eternity nor need or capacity for "times" of anything. Everything in eternity is already as perfect as it will ever be. No need to refresh anything in Heaven. So, clearly a reference to some period within history.

Where else do we find references to this period of peace? In the 1952 book referenced by the Anonymous poster above on April 21st at 10:50 as previously mentioned. In that text we the author clearly condemns Millenarianism but draws a distinction between Millenarianism and a period of "triumphant Christianity." I think the Popes - who excercise the prophetic office - have also foreseen this coming period of peace.

"Empowered by the Spirit, and drawing upon faith’s rich vision, a new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished...Dear young friends, the Lord is asking you to be prophets of this new age...Pope Benedict XVI, WYD 2008

"But even this night in the world shows clear signs of a dawn that will come, of a new day receiving the kiss of a new and more resplendent sun...A new resurrection of Jesus is necessary: a true resurrection, which admits no more lordship of death...In individuals, Christ must destroy the night of mortal sin with the dawn of grace regained. In families, the night of indifference and coolness must give way to the sun of love. In factories, in cities, in nations, in lands of misunderstanding and hatred the night must grow bright as the day, nox sicut dies illuminabitur, and strife will cease and there will be peace. - Pope Pius XII, 1957 Urbi et Orbi

"Oh! when in every city and village the law of the Lord is faithfully observed, when respect is shown for sacred things, when the Sacraments are frequented, and the ordinances of Christian life fulfilled, there will certainly be no more need for us to labor further to see all things restored in Christ...And then? Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion...All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith. —Pope Pius X, E Supremi

And I'm sure I could dig up more quotes, but these suffice to demonstrate that there is convergence in both what Our Lady of Fatima has said about a coming period of peace and what the Holy Fathers have also been saying. True Christian peace is possible at every moment. Theoretically, it is possible right now for every human person to be Catholic as well as to be in a State of Grace. Such a society would be very different from the present "modern" era. The Chruch is perfectly capable of bringing about such a happy situation by - as the 1952 book Teaching of the Catholic Church puts it - "the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church."

Brendan, yes Fr. Iannuzzi does "immanentize the eschaton", in the fact that he posits that the kingdom to come will be established on earth within human history before the Second Coming of Christ and Last Judgment. He proposes that Satan will be completely chained during this era of universal peace, wherein sin and sickness will be removed from the face of the earth, and everyone will live according to the "Divine Will" during an age of triumph for the Church. The list of errors contained in his writings are almost endless, but I will try to address them point by point as far as I can. I don't feel the need to coin a new term for the how the word millenarianism is used in the modern academic sense, as this will only confuse matters further. It also gives the appearance that by terming millenarianism as "immanentizing", you are attempting to distance this position from what has already been categorically rejected by the Church throughout history. Stephen Walford has given you but one example above of an official condemnation of the idea of the establishment of an era of universal peace within history, and the Catechism rules it out entirely, which you will see when I parse it out for you further. Chiliasm and Joachism have been consistently condemned by the Church.By focusing on the aspect of Christ coming in the Flesh to rule on earth, you are missing the point entirely about why the Church condemns millenarianism. The real danger of millenarianism is the idea that humanity can create a paradise here on earth, which is one of the very first deceptions of Satan:“You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)You will also need to address Greg's point above, in that the idea of a future "Eucharistic reign" of Jesus denies that Christ has already been reigning with the saints in the Eucharistic Prensence since His Passover.

The Catechism teaches that the reign of God is already among us, and will only be fully realised in the New Creation after the Last Judgement. It is not something that will only be established on earth in the future after an invisible "middle Coming".

CCC 680: "Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil."

Notice that the Catechism teaches that the triumph of Christ's kingdom will only take place after "one last assault by the powers of evil", whereas Fr. Iannuzzi proposes that God's kingdom will be established on earth after the appearance of the Antichrist, and then after a millennial reign of total peace on earth, there will be another assault of the powers of evil in the form of Gog. Fr. Iannuzzi's views are utterly incompatible with the teachings of the Catechism. How can you reconcile this dichotomy Brendan?

A millenarian style 'era or peeace' as used by its supporters is not supported by Popes. The hope for a Christian or even Catholic world of harmony and love is often expressed by popes, but this must not be confused with support for a millenarian style era or peace as defined by its proponents here and elsewhere. The Bible and Popes and the Church teach against this false notion.

And we cannot change doctrine based on an apparition, especially a faulty understanding of that apparition's use of 'some time of peace'.

The entire reasoning is faulty: 'some time of peace' is promised once the Consecration is done; Lucia and the Church say it was done, but because of a misunderstanding or presupposition of the meaning of 'some time of peace', millerarian peace supporters then say the Consecration has not been done and look for ways to prove that again faulty anti-Church idea, even accusing the Church of a cover-up. Instead, a more reasonable person would say, "OK, it was done, I don't see that 'peace' I expected, so I must have misunderstood what Our Lady meant. Let me study her message again more carefully to try to understand it better."

But reason has been thrown to the wind. "The Church has covered up the true message, Lucia has a double, Lucia was order to say it was done, the world is still engaged in conflict so there is no peace so it has not been done, etc"

If reason were restored and those people did study the Fatima message again with a fresh approach, those people would accept the Consecration has been done, and come to know we must be and indeed are living in that 'some time of peace' right now. That is what the Medjugorje apparition is about - Our Lady Queen of Peace has come to conclude what she started at Fatima by preparing us for her promised Triumph.

And, I might add, if that misunderstanding provides the main impetus for the whole idea of the millenarian ea of peace, as I suspect it does, then once that is seen as misguided, the entire idea can easily be discarded by its supporters, and we can move on to studying the current moment.

None of the Pope's I cited are talking about a Millenarian-style era of peace. Once again you conflate the period of peace/period of triumphant christianity with Millenarianism. Suffering and evil will not be abolished during the period of peace and it will not be a utopia. I think the bigger mystery is not the motives behind certain Fatima supporters' refusal to accept that the Consecration was done, but rather why you and Emmett are trying to conflate the period of peace with Millenarianism? Also, I find your notion that the period of peace is the present order highly dubious and no wonder: you use the demonic apparition/hoax at Medjugorje as evidence for such a mistaken notion.

Just as Jesus' coming was about more than restoring the kingship of Israel over the Romans, Fatima is more than a millenarian style era of peace. It is about the Final Coming, the Second Coming of Christ. The world is being prepared by Our Lady for that most glorious of moments.

That is why the Holy Trinity appeared to Lucia; that is why the final vision of Fatima is the final vision of the book of Revelation, the final vision of the Bible, a vision of the 'garden' restored, of peace between man and God - the final restoration, the garden restored, the New (meaning restored as explained by Dr. Hahn and others) Earth and God present with us.

It would be better to stop drifting about lost in a millenarian peace that will never come, and instead use all thought and exegesis to plumb the depths of Fatima and behold its mystery and its promise.

You've certainly thrown a barrage of objections at me from all directions! Am I supposed to respond to these simultaneously, Jacky Chan style (LOL)?

If you don't mind, I'd rather deal with one (or maybe two) thread(s) of thought at a time. This is necessary if we are going to achieve logical clarity on an issue and weight up the pros and cons fairly--don't you think? I realise this is not my blog site, and that Emmett can do what he likes with it. Nonetheless, that is how I personally would like to proceed.

My dialogue with Emmett left off as follows:

"After reading your mode of argumentation, it seems to me that you are treating (falsely) the Catechism of 1994 as a document that puts into effect a certain doctrinal pronouncement for the first time.

If you are not, please bring to my attention the relevant passage from a previous magisterial pronouncement that condemns the notion of an "era of peace" directly or by implication."

Emmett, do you mind re-iterating what your final response was to that? I wasn't sure whether you did answer the question or whether you ignored it or skipped around it.

At some point I'll try and make a list of the objections that have appeared here and try and and respond to them. But, like I said, they need to be dealt with one by one.

From my perspective, what just happened in this forum was a bit like this: I put Emmett's king in check using a knight, and he and his team responds by moving a number of pawns to threaten my other pieces--without responding to the check. It doesn't matter how many other pieces are threatened, the fact remains is that the king is in check.

I am not suggesting that we are close to an "end-game". Or that Emmett's conceding on that singular point would mean "defeat" overall; the analogy has limitations.

I don't want these comments below to distract from the thread I continued immediately above, which needs resolution in its own right.But I thought I'd add a few other comments, on the side in response to other comments--take this is another "thread" if you will.

Emmett said: "The real danger of millenarianism is the idea that humanity can create a paradise here on earth, which is one of the very first deceptions of Satan."This is a more promising and interesting point, Emmett, because you've begun to reveal the deeper theological reason why you object to the era of peace idea. Just pointing to passages in the Catechism without delving into the deeper thought behind the passages is almost fruitless.

So just to clarify: you would claim, Emmett, that the essential problem with the era of peace idea is that it would be a paradise that humanity creates ? Are you claiming that the notion of an era of peace is inseparable from the notion that man is able to create, using his own power, a paradise on earth?

As for the Eucharistic reign of Jesus, I don't claim that this is another "coming" of Jesus, properly speaking, just a full realisation or "outworking" of the current Eucharistic presence of Jesus. The idea is that the grace of the Eucharistic presence is already there, but that man has to be fully receptive in order for the power of that grace to come into full effect. Nothing controversial there.

And yes, it can be misleading to say that the Eucharistic reign of Jesus is not the "physical" presence of Christ. This what happens in theology--explaining an idea is not always straightforward, and we need to have charity and try and understand what someone is trying to say, rather than taking their words out of context. A more precise formulation would be as follows: prior to the definitive second coming of Christ, which marks the end of time and the final judgement, Jesus is present sacramentally, which is to say: physically, yet in a veiled fashion that demands faith.

Brendan, my response was that the Church has consistently rejected all forms of millenarianism, not just the idea of Christ coming in the Flesh to rule. It's opposition to the Joachite movement of the Middle Ages is the best example of this, since Joachim de Fiore also did not posit a return of Christ in the Flesh to rule, but rather an age of the spirit, almost identical to the idea of an "era of peace" within history. So the Catechism wasn't formulating a new doctrine in its condemnation of all types of millenarianism, but rather articulating a position the Church has always held. The errors of Joachim de Fiore were condemned by several popes and synods. Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed out that the main problem with Joachism is that the core idea of an earthly utopia has historically been politicised and evolved into radical tyrannies. I'll dig out the quote from Ratzinger's book later.

Brendan,As you know the CDF is an instrument of the magisterium, so do you accept its calling an era of peace within history a "doctrinal error": "in millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final, glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ's definitive coming, ah era of peace and universal prosperity" Is a final glorious intervention-an era of peace and prosperity a doctrinal error or not?

To be honest, I've kind of halfway followed this conversation, halfway not. Have any of you had a look at Brendan's website? Even at a cursory glance, it seems that he's invested his entire salvation - or at least taken it as his "charism" - to follow and promote the ideas of Luisa Piccarreta and Fr. Ianuzzi.

You'll get no further with Brendan than you would with Mark Mallett, or any number of Garabandalists that refuse to believe the truth about Garabandal, regardless of the number of times those particular prophecies have failed.

To Greg J Cring. What Our lady said was that Russia would be converted and a period of peace would be given to the world. Russia I believe is in the process of being converted so the period of peace has not come yet. But hopefully it will arrive soon. Yes the consecration has been done as Sister Lucia said it had been accepted by heaven. Try and read Sister Lucia's diary if you can.

Anthony I have read Sr. Lucia's books, and am now reading Bertone's book, and will read Vision of Fatima as well. (I have alos read many other books on Fatima.)

Sr. Lucia wrote the end of the second part of the Fatima message in Portuguese as:"...concedido ao mundo algum tempo de paz."

which translates literally to:

"...granted to the world some time of peace."

This immediately rules out the notion of an "era" of peace; "some time of" does not mean an era.

English translations of the Portuguese state it as "a PERIOD of peace," which is unfortunate because some, without looking at the original Portuguese, have further stretched "period" into an entire 'era', arguing 'period' can mean 'epoch' or 'era', as in the Jurassic Period, or Jurassic Era. But "era" by definition means an extended period of time the years of which are numbered from a fixed point or event, for example: the Christian era. The mistake of using 'period' in the original translation has been further compounded into "extended period" i.e "era". (The word 'period' in Portuguese is 'periodo' and is not found anywhere in the Portuguese written by Lucia.)

Anthony, what do you think Our Lady meant by 'some time of peace' at the end of that second part of the message?

"A more precise formulation [of the meaning of the Eucharistic reign of Jesus] would be as follows: prior to the definitive second coming of Christ, which marks the end of time and the final judgement, Jesus is present sacramentally, which is to say: physically, yet in a veiled fashion that demands faith."

We have that now. That is precisely what Catholics believe right now and for all time - called Transubstantiation - the Real Presence. Christ is here, now, veiled so to speak, under the appearance of bread and wine. So I must ask, are you not Catholic? If yes, then how do you not know this most fundamental of all Catholic teachings?

Whoa, that's a bit rough! I've never claimed that anyone's salvation depends on reading the writings of Luisa Piccarreta, let alone those of Fr. Iannuzzi. I don't consider Iannuzzi to be my "guru"; there are certain minor points on which I would disagree with him (but they are theologically technical). I've chosen Iannuzzi as an authority on Piccarreta because his work is generally acknowledged as reading Luisa's work in an orthodox manner, in light of Catholic tradition. This is important to me in order to prevent wacky interpretations of Luisa's writings. I admit that living in the Divine Will doesn't technically require any familiarity with Luisa's writings. I don't know enough about Garabandal to make any statement on it. I don't consider myself a Garabandalist--I'm methodically neutral on Garabandal. There's nothing wrong with promoting the spirituality of Luisa Piccarreta (unless one is trying to impose it on others, or promote a personality-cult of Luisa, which I am definitely not). It would be rather strange if there was something wrong with promoting the spirituality of living in the Divine Will, given that Luisa has been declared a Servant of God.

By all means raise concerns and theological objections to my views, or the views of Iannuzzi or Piccarreta or whoever. I have no issue with that. But please exercise some charity. We are brothers in Christ.

If I am causing a little bit of a stir in this forum, that should be welcomed, no? Unless you prefer to remain in an echo chamber. I would welcome the same sort of thing on my own forum (but it's only new)--as long as people were disagreeing respectfully. Shouldn't we all have our views challenged and questioned now and again? Don't we arrive closer to the truth through dialogue? In fact, that's why I'm here; I've been learning a lot.

Having said that, if Emmett wants me to stop posting here, he can ask me to stop, and I will.

"Brendan, my response was that the Church has consistently rejected all forms of millenarianism, not just the idea of Christ coming in the Flesh to rule. It's opposition to the Joachite movement of the Middle Ages is the best example of this, since Joachim de Fiore also did not posit a return of Christ in the Flesh to rule, but rather an age of the spirit, almost identical to the idea of an "era of peace" within history. So the Catechism wasn't formulating a new doctrine in its condemnation of all types of millenarianism, but rather articulating a position the Church has always held. The errors of Joachim de Fiore were condemned by several popes and synods. Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed out that the main problem with Joachism is that the core idea of an earthly utopia has historically been politicised and evolved into radical tyrannies. I'll dig out the quote from Ratzinger's book later."

"Brendan,As you know the CDF is an instrument of the magisterium, so do you accept its calling an era of peace within history a "doctrinal error": "in millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final, glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ's definitive coming, ah era of peace and universal prosperity"Is a final glorious intervention-an era of peace and prosperity a doctrinal error or not?"

My current position on the matter is this. The facts seem to pull us in two contradictory directions. On the one side, a prima facie case can be made that CCC (676) condemns millenarianism in the broader "academic" sense, which would include an era of peace. Second, there is the statement included in the CDF publication on Vassula Ryden, which you've just quoted. Third, one might appeal to the Church's issue with Joachim of Fiore.

But there are strong considerations on the other side too (to be continued...)

"Yes, we have that now. The sacramental presence of Jesus. And "now" is prior to the definitive second coming of Jesus. So I'm not sure what your objection is."

Jesus and the Church teach He will return as the God-man fully visible to all - He will descend from His Father's 'house' to come back for us, His bride, as in the ancient Jewish wedding. But He remains with us in the Eucharist.

So you are saying your Eucharistic reign - your millenarian era of peace - is here now in the Real Presence. So you have no point then, really. You agree that yourself and others are confusing 'a coming Eucharistic reign' with what we have now. I have always argued that the current Eucharistic reign is mistaken by those who advocate a future Eucharistic reign based on misreadings of mysics and Our Lady of Fatima's message.

The saddest part of the whole affair is that the true meaning of Fatima is missed by these folks. They misunderstood Our Lady's meaning behind 'some time of peace' and went off in the wrong direction in a hapless search for 'evidence' supporting it. Thus they dig up obscure 1952 conferences that do not support their mistake, but do not condemn it either, and so they shout 'eureka!' when all they've found is proof they are misguided. Meanwhile they ignore Fatima's revelation of the nearness of the Second Coming of the Lord.

1. The promotion of the notion of an era of peace (I do not mean millenarianism in the strict sense) by certain Church Fathers, including St. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho), Tertullian (Adversus Marcion) and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus Haereses). [NB Augustine at once stage also had the same opinion, but changed his mind].

3. The promotion of an era of peace by St. Bonaventure, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Benedict.

4. The publication by a theological commission in 1952, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur: "…a hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things. Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not all certain that there will not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end. ... If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about not by the apparition of the person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church. —The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1952).

5. Cardinal Ratzinger's statement on whether there will be an era of peace:"The Holy See has not yet made any definitive pronouncement in this regard." —Il Segno del Soprannauturale, Udine, Italia, n. 30, p. 10, Ott. 1990

(6a) 45 bishops who proclaimed that Fr. Iannuzzi's work provides an "essential service to the Church"(6b) The Archbishop of Trani personally wrote to Fr. Iannuzzi to endorse Father's writings on Luisa Piccarreta(6c) The authorities that be in the Gregorian Pontifical University, which is authorised by the Holy See, approved with high honours Father's thesis.(6d) Father Iannuzzi's earlier book, "The Triumph of God's Kingdom in the Millennium and End Times: A Proper Belief from the Truth in Scripture and Church Teachings" did in fact receive the Impri Potest of his superior (Emmett didn't mention this).Of course, none of this means that the authorities in question agree with all of the contents of Iannuzzi's publications--only that they are confident that the writings do not contain error or contradict the mind of the Church.

(7) The very obvious fact that Luisa Piccarreta's writings consistently affirm that there will be an era of peace. See http://www.ltdw.org/uploads/2/5/1/5/25153387/era_of_peace_in_luisa_piccarreta.pdf There is apparently no way around this; the affirmation of an era of peace is inseparably entrenched in her writings. Of course I am not an official interpreter of Luisa's writings, but it is almost certain that these statements on the era of peace cannot be taken figuratively.

This in itself is no proof that there will be an era of peace. Nor does it mean that a Catholic is obliged to believe in an era of peace (I have never claimed that, by the way). However, it has been declared that there are no errors in the writings of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta; this is the seventh inconvenient fact.

(8) God always intended there to be perfect peace on earth, and there is reason to believe that God will not allow his original plan to be thwarted. And it is certain that God's Spirit has the power to renew the earth and bring perfect peace, at least for a time.

CCC715: "The prophetic texts that directly concern the sending of the Holy Spirit are oracles by which God speaks to the heart of his people in the language of the promise, with the accents of "love and fidelity." St. Peter will proclaim their fulfillment on the morning of Pentecost. According to these promises, at the "end time" the Lord's Spirit will renew the hearts of men, engraving a new law in them. He will gather and reconcile the scattered and divided peoples; he will transform the first creation, and God will dwell there with men in peace."

It is also certain that there is nothing intrinsically perverse with the notion of perfect peace on earth, given that this would have been realised had there not been a Fall, and that there was perfect harmony in the Garden of Eden.

...

The question is then how we reconcile the (at least apparent) facts on one side with the (at least apparent) facts on the other side.

The ideal method I would recommend is (1) taking a step back and looking at the whole picture of the Church through the ages, and seeing how the "facts" look from that broader perspective. In order to weigh up the theological evidence, it is necessary also (2) to have a good understanding of what levels of authority are had by the different types of statements of the Church. Also (3) we need to appreciate the deeper theological reasons for the various statements and doctrines and condemnations of the Church, instead of just repeating them superficially ad nauseum.

I do have a point, and it was explained in my post. But if it was not clear enough, I will elaborate further here.

A king does not "reign" in a full and proper sense until he has willing subjects who acknowledge his sovereignty. The king's reign in a certain domain is not fully established until all (or at least most) of the persons there subject themselves to his authority. Yes, Jesus is already present with us in the Eucharist. And yes, Jesus already has the intrinsic right to reign over the universe. But under the Eucharistic Reign of Jesus, all (or most) of those on the earth will submit to the sovereignty of Jesus as that is mediated through the Eucharist. Jesus will be given his due as King of the Universe. The reign of Jesus is not a unilateral affair. While it begins with the grace and initiative of God; it demands the receptive obedience of creation to reach its intended outcome. This is precisely why the Church puts so much emphasis on Mary (and rejects Calvinism).

The first half of the equation is already fully in place--the divine initiative, the sacramental presence of Jesus. The second half of the equation (creation's adequate response) is yet to be realised.

Having said that, in a certain sense this adequate response of creation--and therefore the Eucharistic reign of Jesus--was already fulfilled in Mary. The Eucharistic Reign of Jesus will simply be the repetition and extension--the reverberation throughout all of creation--of Mary's receptivity. Hence the Eucharistic Reign will also be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

While older visions provide clues to the end times, Fatima reveals the mystery of the end times.

Fatima's message of 'some time of peace' did not mean an extended, long era of peace in the world.

Since ordinary language is inadequate to express the transcendental truths of heaven, hell, the last judgment, the state of glory, etc., God uses actual historical peoples and eventsas symbols of eternal realities to enlighten us. This is called the anagogical sense of Scripture.

The anagogical sense has two sides - the historical side, and what I call the salvific side - the meaning as it relates to Salvation History, God's plan to save mankind after the fall. Behind the history of man, concurrently in the background stories of the Bible God reveals His salvific work, God acting through human history to restore fallen man.

For example, while many historians say Nebuchadnezzar's conquering of the Jews was merely the fate of history - one powerful, expanding empire conquering a weaker people in its path - the Bible reveals God permitting Nebuchadnezzar's victory over His people as a punishment for their having offending Him by disobedience.

To understand the message of Fatima, one needs to realize its message was given in the anagogical sense, by God through Our Lady.

The second part of the Fatima message is historical; the third part (called the third secret) provides its anagogocial analogue. Knowing each part 'maps' to the other anagogically helps us to understand it more deeply.

Our Lady's use of 'peace' at Fatima:

A) the Fatima 'peace':

Anagogically, there is the 1) historical peace and the 2) salvific peace.

1) Historically on March 25, 1984, the Pope did what Our Lady of Fatima asked, and she said if what she asked was done, Russia would convert and some time of peace would be granted to the world. Seven years after JPII fulfilled Our Lady's request, government-mandated atheism ended in Russia and open Christianity returned. The Russian government rebuilt many of the churches it destroyed. Militarily, Russia pulled back from the world stage and stopped menacing other nations; the Cold War ended.

2) Anagogical side: The third secret shows this peace from the Salvific side. Our Lady indicated God would physically punish us (war, famine, persecution, annihilation) for our turning away from Him and offending Him, and that this would be meted out primarily through Russia. Once the people of God and their leaders (bishops) turned to Him in sorrowful desperation (the Act of Consecration, First Saturdays) He would relent and allow some time of peace. Through the blood of the martyrs of the 20th century, He would forgive us and once again remember His Covenant with His people.

Taking a deeper look at number 2, the anaogigical:Man was at war with God, but on Mt. Sinai God made peace with him by establishing the Covenant between Himself and His chosen people. According to Scripture, it was done in this manner:

From Exodus 24:Then, having sent young men of the Israelites to offer burnt offerings and sacrifice young bulls as communion offerings to the LORD,Moses took half of the blood and put it in large bowls; the other half he sprinkled on the altar.Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, “All that the LORD has said, we will hear and do.”Then he took the BLOOD AND SPRINKLED IT ON THE PEOPLE, saying, “This is THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.” (Ex 24:5-8)...The LORD said to Moses: Come up to me on the mountain and, while you are there, I will give you the stone tablets on which I have written the commandments intended for their instruction. (Ex 24:12)

That is the Old Covenant. And in the New Covenant, likewise we read in Hebrews, comparing the terrifying approach to Mt. Sinai made by Moses and the people to the New Covenant, whereby God, due to the sacrifice of Jesus His Son on our behalf, allows us to touch the mountain and climb it to the celestial Heaven at its top:

You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire and gloomy darkness and stormand a trumpet blast and a voice speaking words such that those who heard begged that no message be further addressed to them,for they could not bear to hear the command: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.”Indeed, so fearful was the spectacle that Moses said, “I am terrified and trembling.”No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering,and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,and Jesus, the mediator of a NEW COVENANT, and the SPRINKLED BLOOD that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12:18-24)

While older visions provide clues to the end times, Fatima reveals the mystery of the end times.

Fatima's message of 'some time of peace' did not mean an extended, long era of peace in the world.

Since ordinary language is inadequate to express the transcendental truths of heaven, hell, the last judgment, the state of glory, etc., God uses actual historical peoples and eventsas symbols of eternal realities to enlighten us. This is called the anagogical sense of Scripture.

The anagogical sense has two sides - the historical side, and what I call the salvific side - the meaning as it relates to Salvation History, God's plan to save mankind after the fall. Behind the history of man, concurrently in the background stories of the Bible God reveals His salvific work, God acting through human history to restore fallen man.

For example, while many historians say Nebuchadnezzar's conquering of the Jews was merely the fate of history - one powerful, expanding empire conquering a weaker people in its path - the Bible reveals God permitting Nebuchadnezzar's victory over His people as a punishment for their having offending Him by disobedience.

To understand the message of Fatima, one needs to realize its message was given in the anagogical sense, by God through Our Lady.

The second part of the Fatima message is historical; the third part (called the third secret) provides its anagogocial analogue. Knowing each part 'maps' to the other anagogically helps us to understand it more deeply.

Anagogically, there is the 1) historical peace and the 2) salvific peace.

1) Historically on March 25, 1984, the Pope did what Our Lady of Fatima asked, and she said if what she asked was done, Russia would convert and some time of peace would be granted to the world. Seven years after JPII fulfilled Our Lady's request, government-mandated atheism ended in Russia and open Christianity returned. The Russian government rebuilt many of the churches it destroyed. Militarily, Russia pulled back from the world stage and stopped menacing other nations; the Cold War ended.

2) Anagogical side: The third secret shows this peace from the Salvific side. Our Lady indicated God would physically punish us (war, famine, persecution, annihilation) for our turning away from Him and offending Him, and that this would be meted out primarily through Russia. Once the people of God and their leaders (bishops) turned to Him in sorrowful desperation (the Act of Consecration, First Saturdays) He would relent and allow some time of peace. Through the blood of the martyrs of the 20th century, He would forgive us and once again remember His Covenant with His people.

That is an intriguing interpretation Greg.I haven't had a close look at the Fatima messages. Any recommendations for primary and secondary resources?

I also wonder--what if someone were to say that the era of peace only lasts 40 years (literally), but has such a profound spiritual significance that it can be called a "millenium" in a mystical or anagogical sense? I wonder how different that would be from Emmett's view of the matter.

Brendan, you are welcome here. I hope this dialogue can continue, as I want to fully understand each of the points that those who hold to the idea of a "spiritual millennium" fully entail. Mark W is just worried that we are wasting our time, and that you will never be swayed. He has seen it all before over on the MoG forum. I hope he is wrong, and that you are open to the possibility that Fr. Iannuzzi has made some grievous fundamental errors in his promotion of the idea of a middle spiritual Coming of Jesus, and the establishment of a an earthly millennial Eucharistic reign which is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the eternal reign of Christ which began with His Passover. Brendan, if you were to condense the "era of peace" into a vastly shorter amount of time, it would be a step in the right direction. But there would still be significant problems to overcome, such as the wholesale rejection of the eschatology of the Church Doctor St. Augustine of Hippo, in favour of the chiliasm of St Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus (who are recognized to have only held to material heresy in this regard, not formal heresy, as they were unaware of the position that the Church would eventually develop). There are numerous other obstacles as well, which I will attempt to address separately.

Brendan,Thanks for your reply. I endorse what Emmett said about you being welcome. I hope you realise that those of us on this side of the debate do not engage in personal insults etc, and thus there is always room for a grown up discussion. Unfortunately on other forums, there is a systematic attempt to portray people who dont hold the view "required" as trouble makers etc.Emmett doesn't play by those rather silly rules. In answer to your post regarding the CDF Vassula Ryden notification, you seem then not to accept their conclusion that its a doctrinal error?. Of course that would appear a bit problematic. They obviously dont accept the idea that the antichrist will come before the era of peace.I need to clarify one thing about the 1952 commentary. It was written by one man, Abbot Anscar Vonier in 1938 not 1952, and in the text he calls the idea of a millennium "religious dreaming" Of course that quote never gets to see the light of day . His idea of a triumphant period cannot be married to a millennium since he dismisses it totally. I would say all his suggestion is that we cannot exclude the possibility that through the normal sacramental life of the Chruch, Christianity will get the upper hand in terms of evangelization new converts etc. There is nothing in his essay that can be linked to Fr Iannuzzi's view. I would also say that biblical texts that have been used to support a millenium (like Isaiah New heaven and new earth) have already been interpreted by the magisterium as pertaining to the time after the last judgment. The parable of the wheat and the weeds tell as (as shown in Gaudium et Spes no 35 i think) that good and evil will always fight constantly until the end of the world).

"1. The promotion of the notion of an era of peace (I do not mean millenarianism in the strict sense) by certain Church Fathers, including St. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho), Tertullian (Adversus Marcion) and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus Haereses). [NB Augustine at once stage also had the same opinion, but changed his mind]."

Here you are upholding Fr. Iannuzzi's assertion that the idea of an "era of peace" has never been condemned by the Church, and that it has its roots in Patristic thought, most notably in the writings of St. Justin and St. Irenaeus, and was also the position once held by St. Augustine. He also claims that this was an apostolic tradition handed down through Papias. Fr. Iannuzzi attempts to argue that the beliefs that St. Justin and St. Irenaeus held and taught concerning the Millennium of Rev 20 was not millenarianism or chiliasm in the strict sense of the word, in that Christ would come in the Flesh to rule with the saints but rather that they held to a spiritual, invisible coming of Christ to establish an earthly millennial reign. He then uses a few sentences from St. Augustine's City of God as evidence of the idea of this "spiritual" coming of Christ to establish an era of peace was held by some of the Church Fathers.However, the idea of a spiritual, invisible coming of Christ to establish an era of peace was absolutely foreign to any of the Church Fathers. This idea is a novelty which began in the late 20th century in North America, in a mish-mash of Protestant dispensationalism with elements of Catholic beliefs. St. Justin and St. Irenaeus taught strict Chiliasm - the return of Christ in the Flesh. They are not regarded as heretics because the Church had not properly formulated its teaching on the Millennium at this point, and Chiliasm wasn't formally condemned at the time they were writing. As Cardinal Ratzinger points out in his book "Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life":

"The marked intra-worldly character which this idea assumed in the Old Testament led in early Christian times to the supplementing of the transcendent hope for the Kingdom of God by the notion of chiliasm: a thousand-year-long reign of Christ and those who are first to rise with him" [We then find the following footnote:]"Cf. Apocalypse 20; among the Fathers, pre-eminently Justin, Dialogus cum Trypho 80, I; Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses V. 31ff" (Ratzinger, J. "Eschatology", p211, fn 73 p284)

Would you suggest that Cardinal Ratzinger is wrong, and that St. Justin and St. Irenaeus did not teach Chiliasm?

We only first find the idea of an "age of the Spirit" in the writings of Joachim de Fiore in the 12th-13th centuries, whose legacy was firmly rooted in the Chiliasm of the Early Church. Joachim did not teach Chiliasm in the strict sense, but his writings are still regarded as millenarian. Below is the other quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's book that I promised to post:

"By way of conclusion, let us try to trace, very schematically, the path that leads from the Middle Ages to the early modern period and so, finally, to ourselves. Of great importance was the work of the south Italian abbot Joachim of Fiore (c.1130-1202), who deduced a threefold periodization of history from faith in the triune God. The age of the Father, the Old Testament, and the age of the Son, the Church as found hitherto, would be followed by an age of the Holy Spirit, characterised by a Church living in spontaneous fulfilment of the Sermon on the Mount, through the universally efficacious activity of the Holy Spirit. There were anticipations of this view of things in Chiliasm, the expectation, founded on the Johannine Apocalypse, of a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth before the end of the world and the final judgment. Although the chiliastic viewpoint had practically disappeared by the fifth century, Joachim revived it as a systematic doctrine of God. It was even made into something of program of practical action, in that one could work toward the awaited third age by founding suitable religious Orders. The hope aroused by Joachim's teaching was first taken up by a segment of the Franciscan Order, but subsequently underwent increasing secularization until eventually it was turned into a political utopia. The goad of the utopian vision remained embedded in Western consciousness, stimulating a quest for its own realization and preparing the way for that interest in concrete utopias which has become such a determinative element in political thought since the nineteenth century. This secularization of Christian eschatological thought has clearly sucked the sap out of faith awareness. People still have hopes for the historical process, but these impulses, now strangers to faith, have been transformed into a secular faith in progress." (Ratzinger, J. "Eschatology" pp12-13).

Brendan, you also need to properly explain how Fr. Iannuzzi's thesis cannot be described as millenarianism in the modern academic sense. If you have responded to this, it remains totally unclear to me. It ticks all the boxes laid out by Norman Cohn, and is essentially just a "spiritualized" version of the Chiliasm espoused by St. Justin and St. Irenaeus. So it certainly falls within the much broader scope of the modern sense of the word, which is not restricted solely to Christ coming in the Flesh.I was aware that Fr. Iannuzzi's earlier 1999 book had imprimi potest. This makes the lack of its presence in his later books all the more jarring. Why do these later works not contain imprimi potest? He had a different superior in 1999, which would possibly explain why it was given for this earlier book, but not for the later ones. If he sought to receive imprimi potest for this early work, then surely he sought it for the later ones. And if it was granted, then surely he would have included it at the beginning of the book. The lack of imprimi potest suggests that it was not granted because the presence of doctrinal error was detected, and it was subsequently denied. As I'm sure you are aware, the presence of imprimatur or nihil obstat does not absolutely guarantee that the book is completely free of error, only that none were found by the particular censor or ordinary, some of whom can have limitations when it comes to a particular field of knowledge. The fact that imprimi potest is not stipulated in these later books, despite Canon law requiring it, raises a major flag as to the orthodoxy of his writing, as it strongly suggests that it was refused by his superior or diocesan censor.

To add to Stephen's point about the impossibility of an era of peace coming after the reign of the Antichrist, you would also need to reconcile this view with the fact that Scripture teaches that the future conversion of the Jews in the wake of the "fullness of the Gentiles" will be brought about by the Elijah to come (Mal 4). The Elijah to come is one of the Two Witnesses of Rev 11 who are put to death by the Antichrist. So the "fullness of the Gentiles" being brought into the Church through the ministry of the Two Witnesses must precede the coming of the Antichrist, and the subsequent conversion of the Jews coincides with the appearance of the Sign of the Son of Man (Zech 12) - which is the immediate herald of the Second Coming of Christ and the General Resurrection of the dead. The conversion of the Jews and the Second Coming cannot be separated by a thousand year gap or "era" involving the chaining of Satan.

Here are some words from the Church Doctor St. Robert Bellarmine on the time of the coming of the Antichrist at the end of the world:

Many false suspicions and errors exist in regard to the Third proposition, on thetime of the coming of Antichrist both among Catholics and heretics. Yet withthis distinction, Catholics know that Antichrist is not coming until the end ofthe world (which is true), but some err in that they think the end of the worldis nearer than it really may be. On the other hand, the heretics err in the factthat they think Antichrist is coming long before the end of the world and that he really already has come. (Antichrist(de Controversiis) Chap 3)

"Therefore, the true opinion is that Antichrist has not yet begun to reign, nor come, rather he is going to come and rule around the end of the world. Yet, in asmuch as he has not yet come he cannot be known. This opinion destroys all thosementioned above and clearly shows that the Roman Pontiffs are not Antichrists. Itis proven by six reasons.It must be known that the Holy Spirit gave us six certain signs of the arrival oAntichrist in the Scriptures: Two preceding Antichrist, namely preaching of the Gospel and the desolation of the Roman Empire; two accompanying it, certainly the preaching of Enoch and Elijah, and a great and remarkable persecution, so much that public religion would altogether cease; two subsequent signs, namely the desolation of Antichrist after three and a half years and then the end of the world which we see presently still exists.Hence, the first proof is taken from the first sign preceding Antichrist. The Scriptures witness that in the whole world the Gospel must be preached before the last persecution will come, which will be roused by Antichrist: “This Gospel of the Kingdom in testimony to the whole world, in witness to all the Gentiles.” The fact that this should happen before the arrival of Antichrist can be proved by this reason: because in the time of Antichrist the cruelty of that last persecution will impede all public exercise of the true religion."(St. Robert Bellarmine, Antichrist (de Controversiis) Chap 4)

The period of peace promised at Fatima will coincide with the new Pentecost that Saint John Paul II prophesied. This has also been called a new springtime and restoration of the Church. Evil, sin and suffering will not be abolished during the period of peace. The Antichrist will come shortly after the period of peace. Emmett and Stephen are correct in stating that Saint Faustina and the Popes have indicated that the Second Coming is near, but that is only half the story. The other half of the story is that approved private revelation and the Popes have prophesied that a new springtime of the Church is also approaching. As for what will usher in the period of peace, I believe Saint Faustina's diary gives us two clues:

1. "Once I was summoned to the judgment [seat] of God. I stood alone before the Lord. Jesus appeared such as we know Him during His Passion. After a moment, His wounds disappeared except for five, those in His hands, His feet and His side. Suddenly I saw the complete condition of my soul as God sees it. I could clearly see all that is displeasing to God. I did not know that even the smallest transgressions will have to be accounted for. What a moment! Who can describe it? To stand before the Thrice-Holy God!"

2. "Write this: Before I come as the just Judge, I am coming first as the King of Mercy. Before the day of justice arrives, there will be given to people a sign in the heavens of this sort:

All light in the heavens will be extinguished, and there will be great darkness over the whole earth. Then the sign of the cross will be seen in the sky, and from the openings where the hands and the feet of the Savior were nailed will come forth great lights which will light up the earth for a period of time. This will take place shortly before the last day."

Stephen, I think the section of Gaudium et spes you are referring to concerning the existence of the tares and wheat alongside one another until the end of time is found in paragraph 37:

"Sacred Scripture teaches the human family what the experience of the ages confirms: that while human progress is a great advantage to man, it brings with it a strong temptation. For when the order of values is jumbled and bad is mixed with the good, individuals and groups pay heed solely to their own interests, and not to those of others. Thus it happens that the world ceases to be a place of true brotherhood. In our own day, the magnified power of humanity threatens to destroy the race itself.For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man. The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord has attested.(8) Caught in this conflict, man is obliged to wrestle constantly if he is to cling to what is good, nor can he achieve his own integrity without great efforts and the help of God's grace."

The footnote here (8) points us to the following passages of Scripture:(Cf. Matt. 24:13; 13:24-30 and 36-43.)

"But the one who endures to the end will be saved." (Matt. 24:13)

He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matt 13:24-30)

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen! (Matt 13:36-43)

" But please exercise some charity." I could easily say the same based on what I've seen written here. I do think that your demands from the assorted experts here have been answered sufficiently, so there's a point at which it can become an echo chamber though not of Emmett's making.

"Mark W is just worried that we are wasting our time, and that you will never be swayed. He has seen it all before over on the MoG forum." Exactly so. My apologies, Brendan, for perhaps being a bit on the side of guilt by association.

Into this mix, I'll add a little personal aside. I came into all these conversations via Mark Mallett; I happened to stumble upon his website first, and I honestly don't recall how I found it. Over the course of about six months I read everything he had to say. I even got into some specific conversations with him directly by e-mail. It was in those conversations that I began to wonder if he was really legitimate or not. At about that time, I stumbled upon Emmett's blog, and thereby encountered Stephen. Between the concerns with Mallet's writing, and some of the very things that Stephen has mentioned above, I became convinced that Mallett isn't the real deal. In fact, I went back to his writings and found some very disingenuous things hidden in some comments (I'm not going into details just now as I can see that you've read the original documents from your comments above).

Mark Mallett's steadfast support of Fr. Ianuzzi was enough to make me question his writings. And no, I'm not going to make any effort to prove any of this to you because it was in private conversation with Mallett, and not something that I think is legitimate to share publicly.

My apologies if I've misunderstood your writings. I have looked at them, but it was admittedly brief. But given my personal experience, and strictly from my personal point of view, you're hanging out with the wrong crowd (for want of a better way to phrase it). And no, I don't feel a need to personally defend that statement further than I have, or beyond the things that have been written here by Emmett, Stephen and Greg. Alas, there are only so many hours in the day, and I have too few of them as it is.

"I haven't had a close look at the Fatima messages. Any recommendations for primary and secondary resources?"

With regards to primary source material, I don't think you'll find any. It's my understanding that they're all locked away in the Vatican Archives, or in the Pope's personal offices (depending on which docs you're looking for). Everything you see is secondary source material, and much of what's on the web is highly questionable. Emmett will have some solid secondary sources that I saw in his book, and I'm sure Stephen has some as well (though I'm only half way through his first book right now).

And to be honest, from a historian's point of view, even if you could lay your hands on primary source material, I'm not sure what you'd be able to do with it. There are so many questions about provenance of all the primary material these days, that I think it may all be rather tainted. Of course, you'd have to see it to judge the material, but my instinct tells me that it's all going to be questionable. (Example - how many versions of Lucia's letters exist, and in what handwriting and language, when written, etc.)

Yet, because our adversaries do not admit this reasoning (nor is it now the time todeduce from their own principles), we will prove it from the testimonies of the Fathers. Thus Hilary, explains these words of Matthew: “The Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world, and then the consummation will come.” Clearly he teaches that Antichrist, which he calls the abomination of desolation, is not going to come unless the preaching of the Gospel will precede him throughout the whole world.St. Cyril, Theodoret, and St. John Damascene teach the same thing with eloquentwords, and besides, the same is gathered from the text because the Gospel says thatbefore that greatest and last tribulation shall come, the Gospel must be preached such as it was not before nor will be afterward. The Fathers and above all, St. Augustine, teach that the persecution of Antichrist is meant by such a tribulation.." (St. Robert Bellarmine, Antichrist (de Controversiis) Chap 4)

Next, it can be proved by three reasons. 1) Christ said preaching in the whole world is a sign of the consummation of the age. Therefore, he adds: “And then the consummation will come.” But if this is not properly, but synecdochically the Gospel ought to be preached in the whole world, it avails to nothing as a sign. For in the first 20 years the Gospel was preached by the Apostles in the whole world. Secondly, as Augustine reasons, all nations were properly promised to Christ, “All nations will serve him.” Christ generally died for all and as a result (as related in Apocalypse VII), the elect will be described as being from all nations, peoples, tribes and tongues. Therefore, even preaching properly ought to be general. For that reason, in Matthew XXIV it is said that the Gospel must be preached in the whole world, “in testimony to all nations;” that is, lest any nation could be excused in the day of judgment for its infidelity on account of ignorance. So, before the general judgment, general preaching ought to precede.(St. Robert Bellarmine, Antichrist (de Controversiis) Chap 4)

"(8) God always intended there to be perfect peace on earth, and there is reason to believe that God will not allow his original plan to be thwarted. And it is certain that God's Spirit has the power to renew the earth and bring perfect peace, at least for a time."

Lumen Gentium states that the perfection of Eden will only be restored after the Last Judgment in the New Creation.

The eternal Father, by a free and hidden plan of His own wisdom and goodness, created the whole world. His plan was to raise men to a participation of the divine life. Fallen in Adam, God the Father did not leave men to themselves, but ceaselessly offered helps to salvation, in view of Christ, the Redeemer "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".(2) All the elect, before time began, the Father "foreknew and pre- destined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that he should be the firstborn among many brethren".(3) He planned to assemble in the holy Church all those who would believe in Christ. Already from the beginning of the world the foreshadowing of the Church took place. It was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant.(1*) In the present era of time the Church was constituted and, by the outpouring of the Spirit, was made manifest. At the end of time it will gloriously achieve completion, when, as is read in the Fathers, all the just, from Adam and "from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect,"(2*) will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church. 3. The Son, therefore, came, sent by the Father. It was in Him, before the foundation of the world, that the Father chose us and predestined us to become adopted sons, for in Him it pleased the Father to re-establish all things.(4) To carry out the will of the Father, Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of heaven on earth and revealed to us the mystery of that kingdom. By His obedience He brought about redemption. The Church, or, in other words, the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world. (paras 2-3)

This accords with the Catechism:

Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God." That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him: Marana tha! "Our Lord, come!"Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace. According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching. (CCC 671-672)

To Greg J Cring. Our Lady said a period of peace would be granted to the world after Russia was converted. You could call that an era. How long that period or era would last has been discussed here many times. From 25 to 50 years in duration. I think it is possible that the period of peace Our Lady talks about could coincide with the reign of the Great Catholic Monarch.

You've provided some great resources and I am grateful for the references. After I add a couple of comments in response to others' questions I won't be posting for a while. I plan to take into consideration your (past and any future) comments in time though.

...On a more spiritual note: Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is the cure for the deep weariness of human existence.

I can't see how the appearance of the sign of the Son of Man could give rise to the conversion of the Jews en masse if that appearance is one and the same as the coming of Christ in glory. For when Christ comes in glory, he will come like a thief in the night (Mt 24:36-51; 1 Thess 5:2-4; Rev 16:15; 2 Pet 3:10) which obviously means that there will then be no time left to repent or convert. If you mean instead that the sign will come "shortly before" the end--"shortly before" Christ's coming in glory to judge the living and the dead--I can accept that. But in that case, I can't see how your point can be proven. "Shortly before the end" is am ambiguous phrase, and could be stretched out for quite a while given the grand scheme of things. And as you know, in the book of Revelation, time is a strange thing; it does not behave in a straightforward linear way, or according to our normal chronological sense.

While older visions provide clues to the end times, Fatima reveals the mystery of the end times.

Fatima's message of 'some time of peace' did not mean an extended, long era of peace in the world.

Since ordinary language is inadequate to express the transcendental truths of heaven, hell, the last judgment, the state of glory, etc., God uses actual historical peoples and events as symbols of eternal realities to enlighten us. This is called the anagogical sense of Scripture.

The anagogical sense has two sides - the historical side, and what I call the salvific side - the meaning as it relates to Salvation History, God's plan to save mankind after the fall. Behind the history of man, concurrently in the background stories of the Bible God reveals His salvific work, God acting through human history to restore fallen man.

For example, while many historians say Nebuchadnezzar's conquering of the Jews was merely the fate of history - one powerful, expanding empire conquering a weaker people in its path - the Bible reveals God permitting Nebuchadnezzar's victory over His people as a punishment for their having offending Him by disobedience.

To understand the message of Fatima, one needs to realize its message was given in the anagogical sense, by God through Our Lady.

The second part of the Fatima message is historical; the third part (called the third secret) provides its anagogocial analogue. Knowing each part 'maps' to the other anagogically helps us to understand it more deeply.

Our Lady's use of 'peace' at Fatima:

A) the Fatima 'peace':

Anagogically, there is the 1) historical peace and the 2) salvific peace.

1) Historically on March 25, 1984, the Pope did what Our Lady of Fatima asked, and she said if what she asked was done, Russia would convert and some time of peace would be granted to the world. Seven years after JPII fulfilled Our Lady's request, government-mandated atheism ended in Russia and open Christianity returned. The Russian government rebuilt many of the churches it destroyed. Militarily, Russia pulled back from the world stage and stopped menacing other nations; the Cold War ended.

2) Anagogical side: The third secret shows this peace from the Salvific side. Our Lady indicated God would physically punish us (war, famine, persecution, annihilation) for our turning away from Him and offending Him, and that this would be meted out primarily through Russia. Once the people of God and their leaders (bishops) turned to Him in sorrowful desperation (the Act of Consecration, First Saturdays) He would relent and allow some time of peace. Through the blood of the martyrs of the 20th century, He would forgive us and once again remember His Covenant with His people.

Taking a deeper look at number 2, the anaogigical:

Man was at war with God, but on Mt. Sinai God made peace with him by establishing the Covenant between Himself and His chosen people. According to Scripture, it was done in this manner:

From Exodus 24:‘Then, having sent young men of the Israelites to offer burnt offerings and sacrifice young bulls as communion offerings to the LORD, Moses took half of the blood and put it in large bowls; the other half he sprinkled on the altar.Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, “All that the LORD has said, we will hear and do.”Then he took the BLOOD AND SPRINKLED IT ON THE PEOPLE, saying, “This is THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.” (Ex 24:5-8)...The LORD said to Moses: Come up to me on the mountain and, while you are there, I will give you the stone tablets on which I have written the commandments intended for their instruction.’ (Ex 24:12)

That is the Old Covenant. And in the New Covenant, likewise we read in Hebrews, comparing the terrifying approach to Mt. Sinai made by Moses and the people to the New Covenant, whereby God, due to the sacrifice of Jesus His Son on our behalf, allows us to touch the mountain and climb it to the celestial Heaven at its top:

‘You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire and gloomy darkness and storm and a trumpet blast and a voice speaking words such that those who heard begged that no message be further addressed to them, for they could not bear to hear the command: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.”Indeed, so fearful was the spectacle that Moses said, “I am terrified and trembling.”No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a NEW COVENANT, and the SPRINKLED BLOOD that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel. ‘ (Hebrews 12:18-24)

And further:

May THE GOD OF PEACE, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep BY THE BLOOD OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT, Jesus our Lord, FURNISH YOU WITH ALL THAT IS GOOD, THAT YOU MAY DO HIS WILL. May he carry out in you what is pleasing to him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever [and ever]. Amen. (Hebrews 13:20-21)

So we see the Covenant, the peace between God and man, is formed by SPRINKLED sacrificial BLOOD.

At Fatima, Our Lady indicated God would physically punish us via war, famine, persecution, annihilation - she is speaking of the curses that come from breaking the Covenant.

She said we have broken the Covenant (offended God) and for that, God is going to punish us as He Himself said He would in Deuteronomy 28.

Anagogic breakdown of the peace:

1) the end of the second part of the message, historic - "The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and some time of peace will be granted to the world”

2) the end of the third part, salvific - "Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God."In the Fatima vision, the blood of the martyrs - the sacrificial blood - is sprinkled on the people at the mountain by the servants of God (angels) just like when the Covenant was formed at the mountain of Sinai, the servant of God (Moses) sprinkled it on the people.

The sprnkled blood of the Fatima vision, the sprinkled blood of the Covenant, shows God restoring the peace between Himself and man, it shows us that God has not forgotten His Covenant with us.

So Our Lady of Fatima says we have broken the Covenant and the curses for doing so will befall us, but in the end after our punishment, there will be some time of peace between God and man.

It is as if God took a lash to His disobedient children, but then once the penitent relented and turned back to Him and asked for His forgiveness (the Act of Consecration united with First saturdays), God remembered His Covenant with His people, the peace between man and God, as seen in that sprinkled blood on the people in the third secret.

The 'some time of peace' is not about war and the absence of war, it is about the Covenant, and the breaking of the Covenant by man.

We are in that time of peace right now, since the Consecration has been done. Medjugorje is the manifestation of that peace - of God's grace being poured out on us at this time, with OUr Lady begging us to fully return to God NOW, before it is too late! If we don't the full force of God's wrath will be unleashed upon the world, since He already relented once due to Our Ladys intercession.

Historically, this is the 1917 Fatima apparition; the salvific side that explains why Our Lady appeared is in the third secret, where we see Our Lady interceding for us by blocking the flames from the sword of the angel who is saying 'Penance, penance, penance,' flames that would set the world afire. Our Lady offered us a way out from this - "if what I request is done there will be peace [between man and God]."

The phrase 'some time of peace' hints that we will again break the Covenant; and this further means future, no doubt greater punishments than WW II and the Cold War and persecution of the Holy Father and the Church; thus the grave secrets of Medjugorje.

1) Historic peace - The 1984 Act of Consecration and the fall of "evil" Russia

2) Salvific peace - the reminder of the Eternal Covenant shown in the vision of the sacrificial blood sprinkled on the people returning to God

B) Now let us look at another part of the Fatima message anagogically - the curses for breaking the Covenant: war, famine, persecution, annihilation.

1) Historic - In the second part, Our Lady said there would be a second war, and God would punish the world for its crimes by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. Russia will be the cause of wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will suffer much, some nations will be annihilated.

And this all came to pass throughout the 20th century from Fatima until the Consecration of 1984. There was WWII. There were horrific famines such as the Holodomor. Russia rose as a nuclear menace, causing war after war as she sought to spread her atheism to the world. Good people, innocents, were killed throughout the century by the evil dictators. There was the Holocaust. The gulags. Churches were destroyed by the thousands; religious priests and nuns were tortured and also killed by the hundreds of thousands in the atheistic communist regions of the world. This conflict throughout much of the century resulted in the city of Berlin being cut in half, one half free to worship God, the other half a captive of Evil. And the nation of Germany was cut in half, one half free to worship God, the other half a captive of Evil. Zooming out further, we see Europe was cut in half with the Iron Curtain - one half free to worship God, the other half a captive of Evil. Zooming out fully, we see the world was cut in half, the East and the West - one half free to worship God, the other half a captive of Evil. Nations disappeared - were annihilated - into Soviet Russia, and destroyed in the cauldron of war. All of this culminated with the Holy Father, Christ's personal representative on Earth, being shot on holy ground - near the tomb of St. Peter, the first pope - by the forces of the Evil one.

2) Salvific - Lucia wrote this: "we saw ... a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions."

The big city half in ruins is the world, which was cut in half in the 20th century in the great battle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil - one half remained free to worship God, one half ended up controlled by Evil. The big city of the Fatima vision is the City of God, the world, and under the onslaught of Satan and his minions, particularly Russia, Satan gained "half", and put it to ruin both physically and spiritually.

We see the entire Church of God, founded by Christ - its bishops, its priests, its Religious and various lay people of different ranks and positions climbing Calvary; that is, we see the mystical body of Christ being crucified just as Christ Himself was crucified.

This is the Final Persecution of the Last Days spoken of in the Catechism in paragraph 677: "The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection." Many saints, theologians and mystics, echoing paragraph 677, have said the Church in the Last Days will suffer its own Calvary and crucifixion - that what happened to Christ at His end will happen to the Body of Christ, at the end.

Also note the description of the Holy Father, half trembling with halting step - a perfect description of the manner of Pope St. John Paul II in his last days - and this Holy Father of the vision is shot, and JP II was shot. This part of the vision is of both JPII suffering and being shot, and also of Christ's personal representative or earthly stand-in for Christ, being killed just as Christ was killed at Calvary - it is the crucifixion of the Church.

This part of the third secret vision - the climbing of Calvary, the cross at the top, and the Church's death, its crucifixion - overlays the historic part, the brutal persecution of the People of God during much of the 20th century, telling us that the final persecution of the Church happened during the 20th century, that this period of time is Armageddon, the battle of Gog and Magog versus the People of God, the camp of the holy ones (Rev 20), the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24).

We see in the vision the final Passover of the Church (part of the title of Emmett's book), and this happened in the middle of the 20th century from 1917 to 1984. Thta is what the Fatima secret reveals to us when one matches up the suffering section of the second part of the secret with its anagogic analogue in the third part.

I conceded that a case can be made that CCC676 is using "millenarianism" in the broader, "academic" sense, given its logical structure (for it seems to use the term to include secular messianism, and this cannot be subsumed under "millenarianism" in the narrower sense). I implicitly agreed that Iannuzzi's notion of the era of peace is (in all probability) an example of millenarianism in this broader sense.

If I were to respond to this difficulty, I would not proceed by arguing that Iannuzzi does not subscribe to millenarianism in the broader sense (I don't think such an argument could be won). Instead, I would point out (1) that there is equally a case to be made that CCC676 is using "millenarianism" in the narrower sense. If CCC676 is using the term in this narrower sense, then it does not put Iannuzzi's notion of the era of peace under suspicion, explicitly or implicitly. Emmett agreed to this conditional but denied the antecedent. I would argue for the antecedent as follows.

The Denzinger section referred to in footnote 577 of paragraph 676 speaks of "mitigated" millenarianism. Now Iannuzzi's "era of peace" might be accurately described as "millenarian" in some looser and more contemporary "academic" sense, but it is certainly not "mitigated millenarianism" in the sense used in the relevant decree (DS 2269/3839, Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944). For "mitigated millenarianism" teaches that Christ will come in glory to reign with the saints on earth for 1000 years, whereas Iannuzzi does not say that there will be a literal 1000 year era of peace, and more importantly--this is what really matters--denies that Christ will come in glory to reign with the saints on earth during the era of peace.

Moreover, when the English translation of CCC676 says that "he Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism" this is a translation of "Ecclesia hanc Regni futuri adulterationem, etiam sub eius forma mitigata, nomine millenarismi reiecit ..."

So we have CCC saying directly that the Church has rejected mitigated millenarianism, and the single footnote included right there takes us to DS 2269/3839 and the Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944, which states that mitigated millenarianism cannot be taught safely.

Indeed, there is still the difficulty that the next phrase refers to secular messianism (especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism) This is a difficulty because the grammatical structure of the sentence (in particular, the use of the word "especially") would have us include secular messianism under the "millenarianism" just spoken of.

What we have here is a curious situation. The first phrase, if left on its own (prior to "especially") unequivocally uses "millenarianism" in the narrower sense. But the logical and grammatical structure of the second phrase is out of sync with this, since it would have us include secular messianism under "millenarianism", thus forcing us to change from a narrower to a broader definition of the term.

However, there is no justification for homing in on this second phrase and using it to govern and modify the meaning of the first phrase. In the first place, the second phrase is logically and grammatically subordinate to the first. In the second place, it would be rather odd if the Catechism were to state that all forms of millenarianism in the broader sense have been condemned by the Church, and then back this up by referring to a Decree that contains no such condemnation! In the third place, no sense can be made of the term "mitigated millenarianism" if the latter word is taken in the broader sense; nor is there any precedent for using "mitigated" to modify "millenarianism" in the broader sense.

As a further argument, I would also add that "millenarianism" in the broader, academic sense is not a well-defined term. It would be rash and irresponsible to claim that all forms of millenarianism-in-a-broad-sense are condemned by the Church, without defining the term so that we know what it covers and what it doesn't cover. But neither CCC, nor the passages referred to in CCC676 and surrounding, give us any clue about what such "millenarianism" would include and what it might exclude. What they do provide, however, is an explanation of "mitigated millenarianism (narrow sense)", and a clear test for deciding what would come under that term and what would not.

The only reasonable explanation for the logical and grammatical awkwardness of the second phrase is rather simple: while the intention of the sentence is clear (at least after inspection), the sentence is poorly constructed, at least in the second part. But this does not provide us with any difficulty. It is not as if Jesus has promised the Church that all of the statements in all of her documents will be superbly constructed, grammatically and logically.

Emmett said: " "The marked intra-worldly character which this idea assumed in the Old Testament led in early Christian times to the supplementing of the transcendent hope for the Kingdom of God by the notion of chiliasm: a thousand-year-long reign of Christ and those who are first to rise with him" [We then find the following footnote:]"Cf. Apocalypse 20; among the Fathers, pre-eminently Justin, Dialogus cum Trypho 80, I; Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses V. 31ff" (Ratzinger, J. "Eschatology", p211, fn 73 p284).Would you suggest that Cardinal Ratzinger is wrong, and that St. Justin and St. Irenaeus did not teach Chiliasm? "

I scanned those references that Ratzinger provided very carefully. In the words of Irenaeus and Justin I find no statement that suggests the coming of Christ in glory before the end of time, so to be honest, I cannot see why Ratzinger has used these references to support his claim.

Not that this is a problem. Are you seriously suggesting that Catholics are bound to put their own reason aside and accept blindly every footnote of every Cardinal in every theological publication? If so, you have little understanding of how authority works in the Church.

Brendan,You said: "As a further argument, I would also add that "millenarianism" in the broader, academic sense is not a well-defined term. It would be rash and irresponsible to claim that all forms of millenarianism-in-a-broad-sense are condemned by the Church, without defining the term so that we know what it covers and what it doesn't cover. "Pope Benedict XVI stated on May 9 2007: "I would say that with the changes in the political situation, the situation of liberation theology is also profoundly different. It is now obvious that these facile millenarianisms - which as a consequence of the revolution promised the full conditions for a just life immediately -were mistaken. Everyone knows this today"Now i would suggest the Pope gave a definition here: the promise of conditions for a just life here and now. That is what all these variations have in common.John Paul II in Ecclesia in Europa said somehting very similar: "ften those in need of hope believe that they can find peace in fleeting and insubstantial things. In this way, hope, restricted to this world and closed to transcendence, is identified, for example, with the paradise promised by science or technology, with various forms of messianism, with a hedonistic natural felicity brought about by consumerism, or with the imaginary and artificial euphoria produced by drugs, with certain forms of millenarianism, with the attraction of oriental philosophies, with the quest for forms of esoteric spirituality and with the different currents of the New Age movement."So basically these popes are saying, dont expect any substantial changes in the world until the final coming of Jesus. Any talk of promises to the contrary are illusory and ignore the clear words of Scripture that good and evil will continue side by side until the end.If you look in my book Heralds of the Second Coming, there is another JP II quote to brazilian bishops if i remember correctly where he says more or less what I have just said.

You guys are wasting your time. You will never convince Brendan or Mallet or Iannuzzi - they have too much invested in their misguided idea. To paraphrase what Sr. Lucia told Cardinal Bertone, if people don't want to believe the whole secret was revealed, that's their problem.

Likewise, it is Brendan's and Mallet's and Fr. Iannuzzi's problem.

As St. Bernadette said, it is not our job to make them believe, only to tell them the truth of the Catholic teaching. There are many things the Church does not outright condemn; it certainly does not follow that that lack of condemnation means every wrong-headed idea out there is right.

Enough already. The thread has gotten lost in the weeds; time to stop trying to convince them and move on.

Brendan your best book on Fatima is "Documents on Fatima" and the cheapest I found it is here:https://www.fatimafamily.org/product-page/documents-on-fatima-memoirs-of-sister-lucia

Thanks Brendan,You've shown a great deal of humility in accepting that what Fr. Iannuzzi teaches is in fact millenarian in nature according to the modern academic sense, and you have demonstrated that you are not impervious to reason. I do hope your eyes will eventually be fully opened, as you could provide a great service to the Church if you can help to convince others on the correct understanding of Catechism in this matter, if it finally sinks in, and you can manage to fully deprogramme yourself from Fr. Iannuzzi's teachings.Cardinal Ratzinger made no mistake when he identified the above sections of the writings of St. Justin and St. Irenaeus with Chiliasm. Both St. Justin and St. Irenaeus held to the chiliastic notion of the "resurrection of the just" to reign on earth in the flesh at the start of the Millennium of Rev 20. An idea which was subsequently defined as heretical, and is absolutely incompatible with the dogma of the particular judgment and the doctrine of the resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. Also, if you look to the writings of St. Irenaeus, he also clearly teaches that the resurrected just will enjoy the beatific vision by "beholding God in this creation" after the "first resurrection":

"Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God's dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere Deum ); and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behooves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards." (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses V. 32)

So I hope you can see that there are some serious problems when Fr. Iannuzzi urges his listeners to reject the amillennial eschatology of St. Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine's insights have remained the sensus fidelium of the Church for the past 1,600 years and directly influenced the portion of the Catechism we are discussing). So when Fr. Iannuzzi asks us to reject Augustinian eschatology, and instead embrace his own novel millenarian doctrine, which is an attempted rehabilitation of the Chiliasm unknowingly and inadvertently espoused by some of the Church Fathers, by "spirtiualizing" the presence of Christ in an "intermediate coming". I hope that you can show some further humility, and admit that Fr. Iannuzzi may be gravely mistaken, and give due regard to St. Augustine of Hippo, when he taught that the binding of Satan took place during the Passover of Christ, and that this is where the Millennium of Rev 20 truly began.

"As a further argument, I would also add that "millenarianism" in the broader, academic sense is not a well-defined term. It would be rash and irresponsible to claim that all forms of millenarianism-in-a-broad-sense are condemned by the Church, without defining the term so that we know what it covers and what it doesn't cover. But neither CCC, nor the passages referred to in CCC676 and surrounding, give us any clue about what such "millenarianism" would include and what it might exclude."

This is only true when reading the Catechism from a millennialist perspective, as you do. From the traditional amillennialist perspective in which the Catechism was written, it makes perfect sense to place a blanket condemnation on all forms of millenarianism in the broader sense, since Augustinian eschatology rules out all theories of a future earthly millennial kingdom. In doing so, the Church leaves no other alternative but the Augustinian model, which had already been accepted by the Church for 1,600 years. So the established sensus fidelium had merely reached its natural conclusion here.

"The only reasonable explanation for the logical and grammatical awkwardness of the second phrase is rather simple: while the intention of the sentence is clear (at least after inspection), the sentence is poorly constructed, at least in the second part. But this does not provide us with any difficulty. It is not as if Jesus has promised the Church that all of the statements in all of her documents will be superbly constructed, grammatically and logically."

No, the Catechism was meticulously written by several of the world's finest Catholic theologians, under the direction of one the greatest minds to have graced the Church, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. It was deliberated crafted to completely rule out all forms of millenarianism. Thankfully, we have plenty of background context as to why all forms of millenarianism are ruled out, and what led up to this, given the many debates that swirling around this subject immediately prior to the composition of the Catechism. The focus on modern variant forms of millenarianism was made largely in response to the current academic milieu, in the wake of the ultimate clash of the radical atheistic ideologies during the wars of the 20th century and the development of liberation theology through Marxist principles.Once it was perceived that atheistic Marxism belongs within the context of millenarianism and secular messianism, there was an urgent need to address this problem, and stamp out millenarianism altogether, in whatever form it took. This is why Our Lady appeared at Fatima in 1917 - to warn of the dangers of secular messianism that was about to be established in the real world during the rise of the Soviet Union, foreshadowing what will be offered by the Antichrist. The Antichrist will also promise to establish an earthly utopia through totalitarian means.

Below is some more from Ratzinger's book Eschatology, which helps give us insight into the Catechism's treatment of millenarianism."The expectation of a wholly just world is by no means a product of technological thought. It is rooted, rather, Judaeo-Christian spirituality. Over against the despair that in all epochs present suffering and injustice occasioned, other cultures defended themselves by invoking such ideas as those of the eternal return or liberation in Nirvana. The contrasting idea of a definitive future salvation, while not exclusively restricted to the Judaeo-Christian sphere, received its most powerful and penetrating formulation there. The marked intra-worldly character which this idea assumed in the Old Testament led in early Christian times to the supplementing of the transcendent hope for the Kingdom of God by the notion of chiliasm: a thousand-year-long reign of Christ and those who are first to rise with him. The question of the earthly realisation of the promise which this notion suggested became a burning issue for Western Christianity through the work of Joaichim of Fiore - whom we met at the outset of this book. Joachim was convinced that God's plan for his human creatures could triumph only if it also succeeded on earth. It seemed to follow, then, that the time of the Church, as men have experienced it since the apostles, cannot be the definitive form of salvation. Joachim transformed the earlier periodization of history, which reflected the seven days of the week, into the idea of a multiplicand: history contains three times seven days. This he did by linking the venerable inherited schema with the doctrine of the Trinity. In this way, it appeared to be possible to calculate the third "week" of history, the time of the Holy Spirit. The immanence of this third age created the obligation to work towards it: something Joachim tried to do through his monastic foundations. The mingling of rational planning with suprarational goals, already observable in the Old Testament and in Judaism, now receives systematic form. It will soon slough off the spiritual dreams of Abbot Joachim and emerge into the political history of Europe, where it will take the form of the messianism through planning. Such planned messianism became ever more fascinating as the potential of planning waxed and religion waned, through continuing, inevitably, to form human motives and hopes. Hegel's logic of history and Marx's historical scheme are the end products of these beginnings. These messianic goals in which Marxism's fascination lies rest upon a faulty underlying synthesis of religion and reason. For planning is now directed to goals which are quite disproptionate to planning methods. And so both the goal and the planning suffer shipwreck.

Continued..."As early as the patristic Church, steps were taken to eliminate chiliasm through an effort to preserve biblical tradition in its proper form. The Joachimist dispute filled the thirteenth century and, in part, the fourteenth also, ending with a renewed rejection of this particular form of hope for the future. The present-day theologies of liberation belong in this context. But just why did the Church reject that chiliasm which would allow one to take up the practical task of realizing on earth parousia-like conditions. The rejection of chiliasm meant that the Church repudiated the idea of a definitive intra-historical fulfilment, an inner, intrinsic perfectibility of history. On the contrary, it affirms the impossibility of an inner fulfilment of the world. This is, indeed, the common content shared by the various fragmentary pictures of the end of the world offered us by Scripture. The biblical representation of the End rejects the expectation of a definitive state of salvation within history. This position is also rationally correct, since the idea of a definitive intra-historical fulfilment fails to take into account the permanent openness of history and of human freedom, for which failure is always a possibility. In the last resort, such neo-chiliasm expresses a profound anthropological perversion. Human salvation is not to be expected from the moral dignity of man, from the deepest level of his moral personality. Rather we are to set our hopes for it on planning mechanisms, marginal to the authentically human though these may be. The values which sustain the world are turned upside down. A planned salvation would be the salvation proper to a concentration camp and so the end of humanity.Faith in Christ’s return is, therefore, in the first place the rejection of an intra-historical perfectibility of the world. Precisely in this negative aspect, it is also the preservation of humanity against those who would dehumanize man. Of course, if this thesis-which in itself is, in any case, rationally evident-were to stand alone, then the last word would be with a posture of resigned acquiessence. And so, over and above this preliminary statement, we must add that faith in Christ’s return is also the certitude that the world will, indeed come to its perfection, not through rational planning but through that indestructible love which triumphed in the risen Christ. Faith in Christ’s return is faith that, in the end, truth will judge and love will conquer. Naturally, this victory is won only when we take a step beyond history as we know it, a step further for which history itself yearns. The historical process can only be perfected beyond itself It is where this insight is accepted, where history is lived in the direction of its own self-transcendence, that in each and every case the process of history is thrown open to its fulfilment. Thereby, reason receives its due place, and the duty to act according to measure. Simultaneously, hope also enters into its proper realm, and is not exhausted on the laboratory counter. The world’s salvation rests on the transcending of the world in its worldly aspect. The risen Christ constitutes the living certianity that this process of the world’s self-transcendence, without which the world remains absurd, does not lead into the void. The Easter Jesus is our certainty that history can be lived in a positive way, and that our finite and feeble rational activity has a meaning. In this perspective, the “antichrist” is the unconditional enclosure of history within its own logic – the supreme antithesis to the Man with the opened side, of whom the author of the Apocalypse wrote: Behold he is coming with clouds,And every eye will see him."(Ratzinger, J. Eschatology, pp211-214)

Happy to keep conversing for the sake of clarification and understanding. But I have stepped out of the boxing ring.

I am no expert on the details of Mallett's eschatology or chronology. I can accept in principle the possibility that Mark is wrong on this or that point but I would defend his moral character and authenticity as a Catholic tooth and nail. That does not mean his gift of prophecy is infallible though; and he accepts that. I personally believe he is a powerful light in the darkness for many people and that he is used powerfully as a humble instrument of the Holy Spirit. I do know Mark believes the AC is coming soonish and that he believes in the era of peace and accepts the message of Luisa Piccaretta and incorporates it into his proclamation.

Insofar as both Mallett and Iannuzzi accept Luisa and Divine Will teaching in general and as a natural consequence believe in the era of peace they are on the same page. Do the details of their explanation or precise application or interpretation differ? I wouldn't know. I hope I answered your question.

Brendan - Ok, so I’ll take that as a “yes”, though rather conditional.

Let’s do a little exploring.

Mallett has quoted this passage of De Civitate Dei on many posts on his blog. He does so in support of his Eucharistic Reign of Christ. Most recently, it was on The Coming Resurection, dated 6 May 2016. (I looked it up. I don’t read Mark Mallett anymore.)

“Those who on the strength of this passage [Rev 20:1-6] , have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period, a holy leisure after the labors of six thousand years since man was created… (and) there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years… And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath, shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God… —St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.; Church Doctor), De Civitate Dei, Bk. XX, Ch. 7 (Catholic University of America Press)”

Now, having read through this, I want to draw your attention to the use of the ellipsis marks in this passage. Most particularly, the last one: “And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath, shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God…”

What turned me off Mallett was, literally, the selective quotations. This passage has been quoted on his site many times. But what is that last ellipsis omitting? I finally looked it up. This is the conclusion of that paragraph (the semicolon below is actually in the place of the ellipsis above):

“; for I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians. It were a tedious process to refute these opinions point by point: we prefer proceeding to show how that passage of Scripture should be understood.”

Now, Mallett is quite fond of Fr. Ianuzzi according to the writings on his blog. So why, if he’s as dedicated as you suggest, and more-or-less upholds Fr. Ianuzzi’s views on eschatology (at least, in general terms), why would he omit the end of the paragraph with an ellipsis? No, I don’t expect you to have an actual answer. It’s a rhetorical question. The point is that Mallett deliberately omitted a section of text that said, “for I myself, too, once held this position”, that contradicts the opinion that precedes it. Clearly, St. Augustine doesn’t hold these positions at the time of the writing of City of God.

Here’s the point, and yes, it is to a certain extent guilt-by-association: Mallett is a devote of Fr. Ianuzzi, and uses this quote to support his ideas of a modified millennium (by whatever name you prefer). It is, by extension, something that Fr. Ianuzzi supports (you’d have to spend some time reading Mallett to get that, but that’s what I took away from many months of reading Mark’s blog). So the ellipsis becomes quite important. Now, Mallett will be the first to say, as you have, that this isn’t Millenarianism proper, but I suggest that his use of the ellipsis makes that a rather disingenuous statement on his part; otherwise, why leave out the part where St. Augustine says that he no longer holds those opinions. If Holy Mother Church dispenses with Millenarianism as incorrect, then this is incorrect as well. Your views seem to coincide with Mallett’s in many ways, hence my using him as an example – especially given his connection to Fr. Ianuzzi. If this is the kind of thing that’s influenced your views, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to examine all of the potential ellipsis marks in what you’ve read.

And no, I don’t have a grudge against Mark Mallett for what he’s written, and your characterization of him is accurate from my own personal communications with him. In fact, I owe him a weird debt for having gotten me into this subject in the first place. I don’t doubt his moral character in any way. I do doubt his interpretations of even his own insight on this subject. I know he tries very hard to get these things right before he puts anything on his blog, but I just do not think he is correct.

And I’m not trying to drag you back into the “boxing ring”. This is simply offered as food for thought. If you don’t want to reply, that’s perfectly ok. And if you come back with something else, I may not reply – not for being rude, but for not wanting to stir the pot any further. I’ve said my peace. As Greg alluded to above, you have more information now than you did when Emmett posted this piece. What you do with that information is entirely up to you.

Again – Pax Christi Sit Semper VobiscumMark

P.S. I’m sorry, I don’t have time to proof this as much as I probably should. Tempus Fugit.

We have seen then how the second part of the Fatima message reveals the violent history of the 20th century, and the third part provides provides it anagogic analogue, explaining it from God's point of view.

- Some time of peace came between Russia and the world (Act of COnsecration leading to the collapse of Russian atheistic communism at the end of the second part of the Fatima message); - some time of peace came between man and God (the sprinkled blood of the Covenant seen at the end of the third part of the message).

Next let us take note of the sudden change in tone in both the second part and its analogue, the third part:

- in the second part, Our Lady's description of persecution and suffering suddenly changes to words of hope and Triumph- "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph; the Holy Father will do the Consecration and evil Russia will change for the better and some time of peace will come to the world. Note this Consecration came about relatively soon after JPII was shot.

- in the corresponding anagogic section of the third part, the salvific, we notice the Calvary/Crucifixion of the Church suddenly shifts to an image of the Covenantal sprinkling of the sacrificial blood on God's people as they make their way to God. Note this sprinkling of Covenantal blood comes right after the bishop dressed in white and other Church members are killed.

We see from this that the Consecration provides an abrupt turning point of the history of the 20th century.

Now notice what JPII said in the homily he gave at the beatification Mass for Jacinta and Francisco on May 14, 2000:

"Last Sunday at the Colosseum in Rome, we commemorated the many witnesses to the faith in the 20th century, recalling the tribulations they suffered through the significant testimonies they left us. An innumerable cloud of courageous witnesses to the faith have left us a precious heritage which must live on in the third millennium. Here in Fátima, where these times of tribulation were foretold and Our Lady asked for prayer and penance to shorten them, I would like today to thank heaven for the powerful witness shown in all those lives."

Note what JP II said: in Fatima where times of tribulation were foretold and Our Lady asked for prayer and penance to shorten them - to shorten the tribulations foretold by Our Lady.

Now notice what Lucia said Jesus - yes Jesus - told her about the Consecration. In a letter to Pope Pius XII requesting the Consecration be done, Lucia wrote:

"In several intimate communications our Lord has not stopped insisting on this request, promising lately, to shorten the days of tribulation which He has determined to punish the nations for their crimes, through war, famine and several persecutions of the Holy Church and Your Holiness, if you will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention for Russia, and order that all the Bishops of the world do the same in union with Your Holiness. "

Thus, Jesus said once was the Act of Consecration was made, He would shorten the tribulation.

Note very carefully what Our Lord said: "promising to shorten...the tribulation" when the Act of Consecration was done.

Now recall what Our Lord said in Matthew 24:21-22:

"for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be.And if those days had not been shortened, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect they will be shortened."

One can readily conclude that Jesus, through His choice of words, revealed to Lucia and to us that the Act of Consecration shortened the tribulation He spoke of in Matthew 24, and to Lucia in 1929.

With awe and wonder, one can safely conclude the tribulation in Matthew 24 was shortened on March 25, 1984, when the Act of Consecration was done.

Thus we see that events of Fatima are prophesied events of the end times, and Fatima reveals we are deep in the end times. The brutality from the Fatima apparition in 1917 until the Consecration in 1984 are that Great Tribulation spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24.Thus Fatima reveals we are at the end; it requires deep study.

Mark W, it is ironic that Iannuzzi and Mallett use the above quote from St. Augustine to support their idea of a "spiritual coming" of Christ to reign in the Eucharist. Mallett strongly insinuates that St. Augustine merely outlined a number of different positions on the Millennium that were all equally acceptable, and conveniently ignores the fact that he was the most vocal opponent of millenarianism in the history of the Early Church, along with St. Jerome. The reason Chiliasm disappeared was the persuasiveness of St. Augustine's arguments, not some sort of shifty political machinations on behalf of Eusebius of Caesarea. Mallett butchers the text to suggest that St. Augustine originally proscribed to Iannuzzi's idea of a spiritual coming of Jesus, rather than Chiliasm, even though St. Augustine states that the view he held was that it would not be objectionable if "the joys of the saints" during the earthly Millennium were spiritual in nature, rather than carnal. Mallett ignores this, and implies what St. Augustine meant was that if the Coming of Christ were spiritual it would not be objectionable. He then glosses over the fact that St. Augustine said that if the joys of the saints during this were "consequent on the presence of God" - i.e. the physical presence of Christ. So St. Augustine's previous belief, which Mallett suggests is an valid position to hold, was still certainly just plain old Chiliasm. The idea of a "spiritual millennium" simply did not exist in the Early Church, they all taught strict Chiliasm. Eisegesis at its very best.

Brendan, I given an extensive treatment on what the Sign of the Son of Man is in my book. It is not to be conflated with the Second Coming of Christ itself, but is rather the sign of the Cross seen in the sky shortly before the last day spoken of by the Church Fathers and various mystics, including St. Faustina, and seen by Sr. Lucia during her 1929 Tuy vision. This was regarded as the herald that appears to announce the imminent arrival of the King. Again, no thousand year gap or "era of peace" between its appearance and the Second Coming itself, which would be completely absurd. It is this event, paired with the ministry of the Elijah to come, that effects the conversion of the Jews. As St. Paul tells us in Rom 11, the conversion of the Jews will come in the immediate wake of the fullness of the Gentiles during the proclamation of the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Christ informs us that the end of the world will follow immediately after this:

And this gospel of the kingdom swill be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matt 24:14)

As St. Robert Bellarmine affirms, it is only after this that we have the ascension to power of the Antichrist, which will only occur at the very end of time. The Antichrist will then put to death the very person who effects the conversion of the Jews, the Elijah to come. As the Catechism states, the Second Coming of Christ is only delayed until the conversion of the Jews:

"The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all". (CCC 674)

It is immediately after the period of the desolation of Antichrist that Christ will arrive in glory to bring the appearance of the Man of Sin to nothing.

"And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming." (2Thes 2:8)

Brendan said: "However, there is no justification for homing in on this second phrase and using it to govern and modify the meaning of the first phrase. In the first place, the second phrase is logically and grammatically subordinate to the first. In the second place, it would be rather odd if the Catechism were to state that all forms of millenarianism in the broader sense have been condemned by the Church, and then back this up by referring to a Decree that contains no such condemnation! In the third place, no sense can be made of the term "mitigated millenarianism" if the latter word is taken in the broader sense; nor is there any precedent for using "mitigated" to modify "millenarianism" in the broader sense."

Brendan, there are not too many people who would be able to fully grasp what you are saying here, and it comes across as the use of casuistry to desperately cling to the hope that the Catechism has not ruled out all forms of millenarianism in the broader academic sense - a category to which you have openly acknowledged Fr. Iannuzzi's "era of peace" rightly belongs to. But it definitely has used the word millenarianism in the broader academic sense throughout, and not just "mitigated millenarianism", as you seem to be attempting to suggest. Since "secular messianism" is the worst form of the millenarianism being condemned by the Catechism, it absolutely and unequivocally means that the antecedent clause "millenarianism" is governed by the use of the word in the broader academic sense. Semiotics - the sign and the signified. "Secular messianism" is "a form of" the antecedent clause, meaning that it is a subset of the umbrella term being used, firmly establishing that the word millenarianism is being used in its modern academic sense. To attribute this to a "grammatical awkwardness" is a great disservice to the intelligence of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. We need to take into account the relevant paragraph of the Catechism as a whole to fully understand that all forms of millenarianism is being ruled out here. A proper exegesis of the Catechism will follow:

"The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism" (CCC 676)

The primary theme in this section of the Catechism is based on a debate in systematic theology which has been described as "messianism vs transcendence" (See for example, the article by the vastly influential Reformed theologian Jurgen Moltmann "Christian Hope: Messianic or Transcendent: A Theological Discussion with Joachim of Fiore and Thomas Aquinas" - "Christliche Hoffnung Messianisch oder transzendental? Ein theologisches Gesprach mit Joachim von Fiore und Thomas von Aquin", Munchner Theologische Zeitschrift 33 (1982) pp241-206). The influence of Moltmann's thought in the development of liberation theology was being sharply criticized by Catholic theologians Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac as well as Cardinal Ratzinger. Moltmann presented a messianic view of the Kingdom of God which had practical implications in the present world, rather than being a transcendent hope for the future.

"If Christianity is to be interpreted as a strategy of hope, the question naturally arises: But which hope? The Kingdom of God, not being itself a political concept, cannot serve as a political criterion by which to construct in direct fashion a program of political action and to criticize the political efforts of other people. The realisation of God's Kingdom is not itself a political process. To misconceive it as such is to falsify both politics and theology. The inevitable result is the rise of false messianic movements which of their very nature and from the inner logic of messianic claims finish up in totalitarianism." (Ratzinger, J. Eschatology, p58)

So when the Catechism is referring to the concept of "immanentizing the eschaton" - "to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement", it was partly in response to Moltmann's theology, in light of recent events in world history, including the rise of Nazism and Communism. The Catechism states that "every time" the claim is made to establish a messianic ideal within human history, it stems from "the Antichrist's deception". Fr. Iannuzzi's error is fairly benign in comparison to that of "secular messianism", and should be described as a type of "ecclesiastical messianism". As such, it isn't "intrinsically perverse" in the same way. I would compare his error to that of Joachim de Fiore, who is still considered a Beatus by the Church, even though his works were subsequently condemned as heretical. But this type of worldly messianic hope is the exact same misplaced notion that the Jews had for the coming of their Messiah, and ending up being completely confounded when their promised Christ was crucified on the Cross like a common criminal, leading to their persistent and obstinate disbelief.Christ told us that His Kingdom is not of this world. Why should His Kingdom be established here on earth before its proper time after the Last Judgement? It is this transcendent hope we should cling to, and not some messianic ideal for the Church in the present.Yes, the Church will experience its renewal in the proclamation of the Gospel to the ends of the earth, just as Christ entered into Jerusalem in triumph before His Passover. But it will be similarly fleeting, and the Bride will have to follow its master in its own Via Dolorosa once the "restraining force" holding back the appearance of the Antichrist is removed. It is only in this moment do we find the true triumph of the Church.

"The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world." (CCC 677)

Fascinating discussion. I've learned so much about millenarianism and the end times. But I am still confused about your position, Emmett. Are you saying that the period of peace is the same thing as millenarianism? Are you basing such a conclusion on the Vassula notification which stated: "In millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ's definitive coming, an era of peace and universal prosperity?" I think it would be a mistake to discount the period of peace promised at Fatima based on the Vassula notification. Please read that notification carefully: I believe a careful reading shows that what is condemned is not an era of peace per se but rather an era of peace and universal prosperity that it ushered in, not by Sacramental life and the mission of the Church, but rather by "a final gloroius intervention." Had the Vassula notification not included the qualifier "final glorious intervention" then you might be able to use it to discount a period of peace but thankfully I believe the Holy Spirit included that qualifier in the Vassula notification in order to draw a distinction.

As for what would usher in such an period of peace, I think there have already been some good suggestions here, especially the person who mentioned the Cross of Light prophesied by Saint Faustina. Also, is it not also said that the Jews will convert to the true faith before the end? Perhaps this mass conversion will help usher in the period of peace?

Anon, I think you need to pay particular attention to Greg Cring's comments above, he has an enormous amount of insight and knowledge on this matter, which I fear is being overlooked by many. Read through them, and meditate deeply on them. The millenarian idea of an "era of peace" needs to be separated from what Our Lady promised at Fatima, which was "a certain time of peace". I concur with Greg, and think that we need to need to realise that we are now in the promised time of grace, when the tribulation has been cut short for the sake of the elect. We have failed to see the wood for the trees.

Brendan, I hope that you will continue to contribute here, and don't feel squashed out. You have a sharp intellect and obvious natural humility. You have actually been a pleasure to debate with. If we could have you on the Augustinian side, and you were able to convince Mark Mallet and Fr. Iannuzzi on the true meaning of the Catechism, I think we could all make a great team. We can't work effectively if we are divided against one another. If you pray hard on this, maybe you will come to the understanding that this is what the Holy Spirit is asking of you.

I have learnt a lot here and at the very least have come to a greater appreciation of the arguments against the era of peace. These arguments can't simply be dismissed or ignored--even if one disagrees.

I think I might stay on here for a while longer, because I still have some unanswered questions. I am still trying to get my head around the inner logic of your view.

I am going to coin a term here because I think we need neutral descriptions for those on one side (Mallett, Fr Iannuzzi, Fr Gobbi) and those on the other (yourself, Stephen Walford [and who else?]). Epoch is another name for era; I'd like to call Mallett et all the "epochists" and O'Regan et al the "non-epochists".

Epochism is the view that there will be, some time in the future but prior to the final judgement, an era of peace when God's Will is done on earth as it is in heaven in accordance with God's original design for creation, but not (1) a literal thousand years of peace, nor (2) a glorious coming or universal unveiled presence of Christ on the earth before the final judgement, nor (3) a beatific vision for the saints on earth, nor (4) the loss of the possibility of sin for the saints on earth, nor (5) a time when the saints will find their happiness primarily in excessive physical pleasures.

Non-epochism is the view that there will not be an era of peace in the sense outlined above. A fortiori, there will not be any of those other things mentioned above in points (1) to (5); on these points the epochists and non-epochists are agreed.

Q1. How does a non-epochist interpret the prayer of Jesus and all Christians (in Mt 6:10) to the Father: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?" What has to happen in order for the kingdom to come and for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? What exactly does this prayer "look forward" to?

Q2. Someone with even a minimal understanding of Catholic social teaching will agree that God wills his people to live in accordance with natural and divine law, and to strive for the common good. While the primary task of the Church is the salvation of souls, she is interested in the physical, social and political situation of man. It is right and just and necessary for the Church, and Catholics, to fight against the situation where grave violations of the natural law are being inscribed in human law (e.g. the legalisation of abortion and IVF, laws that prevent people from practising their Christian faith freely, laws or social arrangements that work against the integrity of the family).

To be sure, human laws and social/political arrangements cannot compel the interior acceptance of divine law and love of God. One certainly cannot reduce the coming of God's kingdom on earth to the setting up of good human laws, good social arrangements and good political structures. For the coming of God's kingdom on earth essentially involves the interior transformation of persons, in response to the Gospel, and through the graces made available sacramentally in the Church.

But having said that, it would also be problematic to say that the coming of God's kingdom on earth has nothing to do with social justice and politics whatsoever. A totalitarian regime in which children were raised in institutions run by the state, and no-one was free to worship God or receive the sacraments in the Church, is not God's will (if God permits man to descend to such depravity, for His greater purposes, that is another thing).

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of liberation theology; I am completely on board with Ratzinger on that point. I abhor the reduction of the Kingdom of God to "social justice" and the "fighting for human rights"; nor am I a fan of radical egalitarianism. Moltmann: no! Ratzinger: yes! But as I see it, there are two problematic positions to avoid here. On one hand, there is liberation theology. On the other hand, there is a Manichean or Gnostic indifference to matter and the order of creation. In fact, I'd add a third danger--the reduction of Catholic spirituality to a privatised, individual piety.

(T1) It is incumbent on Catholics to pray and hope and work (each in their own way) so that God's Will will be done on earth at all levels, including the material, the social, the economic and the political.

To deny this would be Manicheanism, and completely against the mind of the Church.

T1 implies

(T2) There is nothing essentially disordered about praying and hoping and working that God's Will will be done on earth at all levels.

Now consider each of the following:

[A] Collapsing the supernatural (the order of grace) into the natural

[B] Collapsing the eschatological tension of "already-but-not-yet" into the pure presence or "already" of something achieved in time.

[C] Reducing human fulfillment, or the kingdom of God, to something achievable by natural means (human ingenuity, social engineering, human force, revolution, some political movement or program, etc.)

[D] Denying that the salvation of souls is more important than the achievement of social justice.

[E] Saying that the salvation of souls is nothing more than the achievement of social justice.

[F] Denying the fallenness of man or the reality of sin.

[G] Saying that a man [with the use of reason], even now, can be finally confirmed in sanctity so that he cannot possibly sin.

Now

(T3) Each of [A] to [G] is intrinsically disordered.

Combining T2 and T3, we can conclude that

(T4) Praying and hoping and working that God's Will will be done on earth at all levels does not involve [A], [B] ... or [G], or any combination thereof.

What about the actual realisation of God's Will on earth at all levels? Could the partial realisation of God's Will on earth at all levels (material, economic, social, political), be intrinsically disordered? Hardly! Otherwise it would be disordered to lift a single finger so as to make God's Will be done a little more perfectly on earth--which is completely against Catholic social doctrine, and completely absurd! But once that much is conceded, there is no room for thinking that a perfect realisation of God's Will on earth (at all levels) in some future era, would be intrinsically disordered if it were to occur.

(NB: By "perfect" I do not mean: perfect with that ultimate mode of perfection which can only be achieved once the veil separating time from eternity is removed and God is seen face to face. I mean perfect with that "pentultimate" mode of perfection which is possible prior to the final unveiling.)

It follows that the notion of an era of peace does not imply any of [A] to [G] above.

The main theological argument the non-epochist offers against the notion of an era of peace is that it would imply some or all of the problematic positions represented by [A] to [G] above (there are other arguments to do with the chronological order of things, such as when the Jews convert, or when the Antichrist appears, but I take these as being secondary arguments). My question is:

(Q2) How can one consistently claim that epochism implies something problematic (i.e., at least one the points listed in [A] to [G]) without implying that Catholic social teaching implies the same thing?

Putting the same question another way:(Q3) There are two choices for the non-epochist. Either (a) he agrees that it is incumbent on Catholics to pray and work that God's Will be done on earth in the material, social, economic and political realms. Or (b) he denies this. If he takes option (b), how could this possibly be squared with Catholic social doctrine? And how does it not imply a Manichean indifference or disdain toward the material created order? If he takes option (a), how does he consistently maintain that the perfect realisation of God's Will on earth at all levels would be disordered and against God's Will? Does he recommend that, when we pray that God's Will be done on earth, we qualify this by saying: "but not perfectly, because that way lies Moltmann and liberation theology"? Does he recommend that we make way for the coming of God's kingdom on earth but only to a certain extent , citing the principle of "moderation in all things"? Does he recommend that we open our hearts, and our world, to the inbreaking of God's grace, but only to a certain extent, in accordance with what we already know and can control and define, like those who preferred the Judaic Law to the Gospel? Does he recommend that we "harness" the grace of God in such a way that we allow it to go just this far in remaking people and renewing the earth, but no further? Does he recommend that we be only partially docile to the work of the Holy Spirit, for fear that the Spirit would do something disordered, or against God's Will? Does he recommend that we co-operate with the Holy Spirit as He renews particular lives and particular situations, yet resist the universality of His Will and Power as He seeks to renew the whole earth? Does he recommend that we separate the universality of the Divine Will from God's Will in the particular moment in order to resist the former while making way for the latter?

I just can't see how someone could adopt the main argument against epochism (the claim that there will be an era of peace), while also having a coherent Catholic theology. What am I not seeing?

Thanks for staying on board Brendan. I understand that you want to emphasise that the Millennium of Rev 20 doesn't necessarily have to be comprised of a literal 1,000 period, but we already have terms for "epochism" and "non-epochism", which is millennialism and amillennialism. On this thread, the various amillennialists include myself, Stephen Walford (author of "Heralds of the Second Coming" and "Communion of Saints" and Greg Cring (author of "A While Longer"). Besides this, erm, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and every saint, doctor and pope since. Also a large majority of Protestants. :)

Divine Will spirituality is a necessary component of Fr. Iannuzzi's millennialist eschatology, because in order for there to be an era of universal peace on earth, then there would have to be a fundamental ontological change in human freewill. Cardinal Ratzinger encapsulates this point, which I already quoted above:

"The biblical representation of the End rejects the expectation of a definitive state of salvation within history. This position is also rationally correct, since the idea of a definitive intra-historical fulfilment fails to take into account the permanent openness of history and of human freedom, for which failure is always a possibility."

The key point is keeping in mind Christ's words that the wheat and tares must exist side-by-side until the end of the world.

Brendan,Just on your point about Fr Gobbi, I accept his own interpretation of his revelations were millenarian, but please have a read of this analysis I did a few years back concerning the "blue book". You will see, nothing in them (and I accept we await a final judgment of the Church on them) backs up a theory of an era of peace.I would be interested to know your view once you've read it. It may help change your mind

Sure, we have the term "millenialism". But as you just admitted, it's a very broad term that also embraces Protestant pre-millenialism (both dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist) and Protestant post-millenialism and even non-mitigated millenarianism. I would argue, then, that we need a more precise term for the very specific claim that there will be an era of peace under those conditions stated above (i.e., for "epochism").

I agree that Divine Will teaching/spirituality is part and parcel of epochism; I would also claim that epochism is part and parcel of Divine Will teaching. But please elaborate on what you mean by "fundamental ontological change in human freewill". Does such a change (by your definition) occur in conversion? baptism? sanctification? mystical union? entrance into heaven?

I am so happy you posted. It bothered me that Fr. Gobbi's name was included in that group. First, because a strict delineation is needed between him and his alleged locutions, otherwise it might appear that the Blessed Virgin is on the side of Mallet & Fr. Iannuzzi. Second, because I've been following the MMP since 1989 and have consumed all the messages multiple times, as well as Fr. Gobbi's rather late theological speculations on what they might portend from the eschatological perspective. In none of the alleged locutions do I find any support for a epoch of peace. What the Blessed Virgin states about Christ's return can be summarized in her penultimate message of 603k, given on 12/24/1997:

"You are living out the mystery of this second Advent, which is preparing you to receive Jesus, when He returns to you on the clouds of heaven. Only then will the second Advent through which you are living reach its fulfillment. Then time will attain its fullness. Then will the Immaculate Heart of your heavenly Mother attain her triumph, in the definitive and glorious triumph of her Son Jesus."

Brendan-

I'm respectfully surprised that you put that sort of interpretation on Our Lord's prayer - "thy will be done." In a brief survey of the best scriptural commentaries and Church Father's volumes of writings under which my shelves groan I cannot find any support for an interpretation other than this (to paraphrase the best of them): "the statement 'thy will be done' (only added in Matthew) taken eschatologically simply ties back to 'thy Kingdom come' when there will be perfect harmony at the end of time between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom when it comes to its fulfillment on earth.' There will never be an in-between time. What we work and pray for is the coming of God's Kingdom, whose fulfillment will arrive only at the end when Christ returns.

Brendan, I would suggest that you read the following article on "Divine Will" and how it pertains to human freewill by Fr. William Most, one of America's finest theologians: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=108

Thanks Mark L,Its good to know I am not the only one who thought Fr Gobbi's messages have no relation to a Rev 20 style era of peace. Strange how in at least two messages, The Blessed Virgin say Jesus will come in his glorious body at the end of this second advent. And again, Satan will defeated forever-not for a temporary period of time.CheersStephen

"On this thread, the various amillennialists include myself, Stephen Walford (author of "Heralds of the Second Coming" and "Communion of Saints" and Greg Cring (author of "A While Longer")."

Two things...

First off, I think most of us here are millennialists, really. The only question I ever see revolves around the timing of the time of peace promised by Mary at Fatima. I myself sometimes think it might be in the past, present or future, where I think Emmett is more leaning toward the future.

Stephen - I'm about halfway through Heralds of the Second Coming. I've gotten to the chapter on the Pope of Fatima. I'm curious about one thing. Do you think there's any chance that it's NOT St. JPII, and might be a pope sometime in the future?

I've read other things about this subject, and your work is quite compelling (and I'm not done with the chapter), but I've always been curious when reading about this if there might be a different interpretation that would permit the Fatima pope to be a future event.

Hi Mark,In terms of the Pope killed, I would say yes definately. Have you got to the letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Bishop Pavel Hnilica concerning the 3rd secret? He states the persecution seen in the vision relates to the persecutions until the end of the world, thus it has to include a future persecution, and I think I am correct in saying, Greg, Emmett and myself all agree that this vision probably relates directly to the time of the AntichristBest wishesStephen

I believe the period of peace will coincide with the people Israel living in " unwalled villages' and the significant influence of Jewish politics, controlling the middle east after, through war, defeating the surrounding peoples and contrary national interests of which we read daily. This influence will resort in a world financial player through the fruit of recent natural gas and liquid oil finds.and recent deals with russia and europe regarding a gas supply role.Recent revelations regarding Israeli business, biological and pharmacy accomplishments along with national control of israeli security and independent internet control point to a future with unrivaled israeli leadership in a world affecting position.

Nonsense! This "Jewish Peace" you speak sounds to me like the "political form of a secular messianism" which the Catechism condemns as "intrinsically perverse." There are many indications that Israel is doing all it can to undermine the Christian-protecting Assad in Syria who happens to have the support of Catholic bishops in Syria in his fight against Western-backed, terrorist "Syrian Rebels." This "unrivaled Israeli leadership" in the Middle East sounds more like preparation for the Antichrist than something that coincides with the period of peace. The period of peace may indeed see the mass conversion of Jews to the Catholic Church, but I imagine it will also be a source of division as many -Jew and Gentile alike - will refuse to convert and wish to see the status-quo continue.

Also, Emmett, it seems you are trying to have it both ways: one one hand you have conceded that the period of peace is not the same thing as Millenarianism, but on the other hand you seem to be asserting that the period of peace is nothing more than present period of grace. Sort of seems like you are trying to have it both ways.

"Q1. How does a non-epochist interpret the prayer of Jesus and all Christians (in Mt 6:10) to the Father: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?" What has to happen in order for the kingdom to come and for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? What exactly does this prayer "look forward" to?

Answer:"In the Lord's Prayer, "thy kingdom come" refers primarily to the final coming of the reign of God through Christ's return." (CCC 2818)

"The kingdom of God, in fact, has an eschatological dimension: it is a reality present in time, but its full realization will arrive only with the completion or fulfilment of history." (CDF Dominus Iesus, para 18)

I tried to find an English translation of the 1957 Urbi et Orbi address that was cited by both Mark Mallett and Stephen in defense of their points, but all I could find was the Italian text. So I ran part of it through Google translate - which is not always the most accurate translator- yet I believe it is adequate. I really wish someone could translate the Vatican's italian text of the 1957 Urbi et Orbi into the most true English sense, but here is what I came up with Google translate from a portion of the Pope's message that I found striking and perhaps relevant to this discussion on the period of peace:

"They are therefore no longer as secure as they once did. They see with sufficient clarity that no progress by themselves can revive the world. Many already realize - and confess - that this night of the world has come because Jesus was arrested because he wanted to make him alien to family, cultural and social life; Because the people have been lifted up against Him, because He has been crucified and mute and inert.

And there is a multitude of bold and ready souls, aware that such death and burial of Jesus was possible only because among his friends found him who denied him and betrayed him; There were so many who fled scared in front of enemy threats. Those souls know that timely, concerted and organic action will change the face of the earth, renewing it and improving it.

You need to remove the tombstone, with which you wanted to close the truth and the good in the sepulcher; Jesus must be resurrected; Of a true resurrection, which no longer accepts any dominion of death: "Surrexit Dominus vere" (Luc 24: 34), "unmediated, super-dominated mors" (Romans 6: 9).

In individuals, Jesus must destroy the night of deadly blame with the dawn of regained grace.

In families, on the night of indifference and coldness, the sun of love has to happen.

In the workplace, in cities, in nations, in lands of incomprehension and hate, the night must illuminate as the day, "nox sicut dies illuminabitur": and the struggle will cease, peace will be made. Come, Lord Jesus.

Humanity does not have the strength to remove the stone it itself has made, trying to prevent your return. Send your angel, O Lord, and make our night light like the day.

How many hearts, O Lord, are waiting for you! How many souls are consumed to hasten the day when you only live and reign in the hearts! Come, Lord Jesus...."

Pope Benedict XVI:"I said the “triumph” will draw closer. This is equivalent in meaning to our praying for the coming of God’s Kingdom. This statement was not intended—I may be too rationalistic for that—to express any expectation on my part that there is going to be a huge turnaround and that history will suddenly take a totally different course. The point was rather that the power of evil is restrained again and again, that again and again the power of God himself is shown in the Mother’s power and keeps it alive. The Church is always called upon to do what God asked of Abraham, which is to see to it that there are enough righteous men to repress evil and destruction. I understood my words as a prayer that the energies of the good might regain their vigor. So you could say the triumph of God, the triumph of Mary, are quiet, they are real nonetheless." Light of the World, p. 166, A Conversation With Peter Seewald

I think it is important to keep in mind that even genuine mystics can be mistaken about the interpretation of whatever they have been told by way of private revelations. St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross describe these caveats in great detail. The fact that Stephen Walford has shown how Fr. Gobbi's personal eschatological viewpoint appears to differ from the actual content of his alleged interior locutions suggests to me that he was genuine. I would like to reiterate this point to Brendan, since some people seem to think that I have accused Fr. Iannuzzi and Mark Mallett et al of being heretics. I have never made such a claim. Holding materially heretical beliefs is on a completely different level from being in formal heresy. Many saints have held to materially heretical beliefs, and they were completely innocent of being in formal heresy. In the case of the Early Church Fathers, the Church simply hadn't defined various doctrines and dogmas that currently exist, so couldn't have been possibly aware that their private speculations contradicted something that would be defined in the future. I have said I the past that I greatly respect Mark Mallett, and admire his work, even though I sharply disagree with his viewpoint on the Millennium. I certainly don't believe that he is a formal heretic, and personally, I think he is a genuine and deeply sincere Catholic. I have no reason to suspect otherwise. Same with yourself Brendan. To be in formal heresy, a person must be in full knowledge that their beliefs stand in direct contradiction of Church teaching, and persist anyway. Otherwise, it has no impact on personal holiness.My concern is that this novelty of spiritual millenarianism (or "epochism" as Brendan prefers) is causing division in the Church on the subject of the Millennium, where previously none existed. I have also firmly established that the Church has condemned all forms of millenarianism, and not just ancient Chiliasm. As such, Fr. Iannuzzi's teachings falls under the category of millenarian teachings that are condemned by the Catechism. Does this impact his personal holiness, and automatically condemn him as a public heretic? No, not unless he continues on this path after his writings are formally condemned by the CDF. But given the exact wording of the Catechism, it is inevitable that his books will be condemned.

Even though Elvis has clearly left the building, I would like to flag up another quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's book, which also absolutely rules out the idea of a universal peace on earth:

"... even a cursory glance at the actual reality of every century suggests that such "signs" indicate a permanent condition of this world. The world has always been torn apart by wars and catastrophes, and nothing allows one to hope that, for example, "peace research" will manage to erase this watermark of all humanity." (Ratzinger, J. "Eschatology", p198)

Pope Francis has been called the new leader of the global Left. He has not demurred from the acclimation. He has been flatteringly featured in publications that can hardly be considered supportive of Catholic teaching, such as Rolling Stone. He has been praised by leaders of the pro-abortion movement, such as Hillary Clinton. Those who favor unrestricted Muslim immigration in the West and open borders feel they have a friend in Francis, and they are seldom disappointed.

But those who favor traditional Church teaching, including the indissolubility of marriage and the norms for receiving the sacraments, have felt the sting of the Pope’s rebuke and been subjected to personal insult. He does not answer dubia — questions concerning his positions; he denigrates the questioners. The ad hominem attack is his default mode. (See: “Now Francis Targets ‘Rigid’ Youth: But what does "rigid" mean? And why does Francis never tell us?”.)

Pope Francis acts more like a politician courting a constituency than the Vicar of Christ propagating a timeless teaching (See: “An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope”). His tactics are those of a candidate trying to undermine his opponent by character assassination. Missing from the voluminous homilies, speeches, interviews and press conferences of this pontiff is reasoned argument for his positions. (See: “The Laity Roar While the Cardinals Meow: The Catastrophe that is Amoris Laetitia”.) He relies on caricature, invective and vague “gospel” imperatives, which have an elasticity that can be adapted to most any circumstance.

Francis denounces “populism” as dangerous and fascistic whenever he disagrees with the “people.” Otherwise, he defends popular fashions in morals and ideology, often opposing the “living” reality of the times to the outmoded intransigence of traditional doctrine. He is with you so long as you are with him. We have never had a Pope who is so divorced from the normal exercise of his office and so eager for the approbation of the ruling classes, that is, the globalist Left. (See: "For 2017 More of the Same: Leftist Politics Wrapped in the Language of Catholic Piety".)

Meanwhile, the Left with which the Pope has aligned himself has suffered some setbacks, and it is not taking them well. Donald Trump has won the presidency of the United States; a “conservative” has been appointed to the Supreme Court. The unholy alliance of the “deep state” with its political masters is being exposed. The intelligence community is now known to be corrupt and untrustworthy. Democrats still control the media, but are hemorrhaging popular support. They appear more and more like generals without an army.

In Europe, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. French nationalism is rising. Poland and Hungary are resisting Muslim immigration. And the narrative of current events is no longer tightly controlled by the propaganda arm of globalism — that is, the major news outlets — but is coming into public view, in factual and unedited form, from a growing number of information sites via the Web.

Dear Friend of Our Lady,In the preface of the enclosed booklet, First SaturdayMeditation Manual, the above quoted words of Father Gruner werefollowed with:“Our Lady of Fatima summed up the motive of all Herapparitions and requests with these poignant words: ‘Sonumerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns forsins committed against Me, that I come to ask forreparation’. This is the very heart of the First Saturdaydevotions – Our Lady’s urgent and heart-rending plea that wemake reparation on behalf of sinners who will otherwise belost.“Nowhere is this plea more movingly expressed than in OurLady’s formal request for the promulgation of the Five FirstSaturdays”.

..............As you likely know, many Protestant errors began slowlycreeping into the Church after the Second Vatican Council endedin 1965. In some ways it was a subtle invasion of error andtherefore not noticed by many Catholics.Forty-one years later, the increase in heretical errors inthe Church had grown beyond what Catholics before 1960 could haveconceived was ever possible.Unfortunately that growth in errors was obvious only toCatholics knowledgeable in the true Faith, which is a smallminority of those in the Church today professing to be Catholic..............

for the people who promote the idea of a 1984 russian consecration, these demands were unmet.......................

True to Her word, Our Lady reappeared to Sister Lucy on June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, when in a great and sublime vision representing the Blessed Trinity, She announced that “the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia.”

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/consecra.asp

While several popes have undertaken consecrations of the world since the request was made public (including Pope John Paul II in 1982 and 1984), sadly, none of these have fulfilled the specific requirements of Our Lord and Our Lady’s requests. In repeated visits to Sister Lucy, Heaven’s King and Queen have insisted that it is Russia (and Russia only) that is to be the object of this public act of obedience and prayer. In addition, Our Lord and Our Lady have indicated that the Holy Father is to be joined in the act of consecration by all the Catholic bishops of the world on the same day and at the same time in their respective dioceses. Interestingly, only Pope Pius XII’s consecration of the world in 1942 included substantial involvement of the bishops. Sister Lucy has written that this imperfect act of obedience, while not fulfilling Our Lady’s Fatima request, nevertheless hastened the end of the Second World War, thus sparing the lives of tens of millions of soulschris

In response to Sister Lucy’s question why He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father consecrating that nation to His Mother’s Immaculate Heart

Our Lord replied “Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that it may extend its cult later and put the devotion of the Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.”

It is so tiring hearing this nonsense repeated over and over by the Fatimists.

"Russia and only russia" is supposition, not supported by the facts or Sr. Lucia.

In the lingo of the day, it is 'fake news'.

Our Lady never said the word "Russia" had to be said exactly. To say one had to say "Russia" and only Russia as if it was a magic word is to reduce God to practicing magic and requesting magic spells be invoked.

"You need to say 'hocus pocus' 3 times while hopping on your left foot for it to take effect, and exactly that and nothing else."

Yeah right. Get real.

If one goes to confession and the priest does not perform the sacrament exactly to form but gets the basics such as the absolution right, one is absolved. It is God who absolves through the priest based on the intention of the sinner to repent.

Conversely, if an adulterer who is planning more adultery that night goes to confession in the afternoon and confesses his or her adultery and the priest performs the sacrament exactly "by the book", crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's, and gives absolution, the adulterer might think he or she is absolved, but is not because he or she has already made plans to continue the affair at a hotel room later that night.

God know one's intention. JPII stated his intention during the COnsecration in 1984 - he said he was consecrating and entrusting to Our Lady those people who she is waiting to be consecrated by him:

Part of JPII's prayer before the statue of Our Lady of Fatimaon March 25, 1984: "So we have wanted to choose this Sunday, the third Sunday of Lent of the year 1984, still within the Holy Year of the Redemption, for the act of entrusting, of consecrating the world, the great human family, all peoples, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN SUCH NEED OF THIS CONSECRATION, THIS ENTRUSTMENT [I.E. especially the RUSSIAN peoples]."

greg, the newspaper of rome on the same day as your info, the pope confirms he did NOT fulfil consecration. quote"I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.” —The words of the "woman clothed in light" whom we now call "Our Lady of Fatima," who appeared to the three shepherd children of Fatima, Portugal, on six occasions in 1917. The words are a central part of what came to be known as "the secret of Fatima," also referred to as the "three secrets of Fatima." Pope Francis will travel to Fatima at the end of this week to canonize two of the three children as saints, giving a certain Church "seal of approval" to the Fatima message. For an interesting video on the "three secrets" of Fatima by Rome Reports, with some historic photos of the three shepherd children and the May 13, 1981, assassination attempt against St. John Paul II, see this link. For the text above, and the official Vatican interpretation of it (quite a long text), go to the Vatican website here

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 12, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Famed European Catholic historian Dr. Roberto de Mattei says the consecration of Russia to the Mother of God, as requested by Our Lady of Fatima 100 years ago, is needed now more than ever.

"the newspaper of Rome on the same day as your info, the pope confirms he did NOT fulfil consecration. "

More fake news.

If one makes the effort to understand the why behind Fatima - why did God do it? - instead of just focusing on the what - what happened at Fatima? - then one 'sees' that the consecration was indeed done, and that there is no fourth secret.

I am not going to go back and fourth on it. Those who think it was not done are mistaken. Those who expect a fourth secret are mistaken. And in both cases, it is their problem. All I can recommend is a thorough exegesis of the 'why' behind Fatima, accompanied by prayer.

The why has been stated by Heaven. To make it known that that God wants it to be known to the world that The MOTHER OF Jesus is responsible for certain accomplishments.!You call it fake news when the totus ......Pope himself tells you the consecration is not done. You disgrace yourself with the notion that the academic only can understand the question. more fake news from the pope himself. You should be sorry for this lacking acknowledgement.Evidently you believe we are obligated to have a blind following to the pope regardless of the errors he spouts. This does not mean we are not with the pope.I fear we shall see the real need for the consecration of Russia in the next few years. I think certain people will be expected to be in the front row.

God desires the Consecration of Russia to come through the hands of His Blessed Mother, who will not only make the consecration more pleasing to Him, but Who will draw the world to Her Immaculate Heart through the subsequent peace She will bring to it. Shortly before her death, Blessed Jacinta of Fatima told her cousin Lucy,

It will not be long now before I go to Heaven. You will remain here to make it known that God wishes to establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. When you are to say this, dont go and hide. Tell everybody that God grants us graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that people are to ask Her for them; and that the Heart of Jesus wants the Immaculate Heart of Mary to be venerated at His side. Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her.4Through the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith, the subsequent missionary activity of a converted Russia, and through the moral miracle of Russias conversion, the rest of the world will be converted. We cannot have the peace of Christ in the whole world without the conversion of the world to the one true religion that Jesus Christ founded, namely the Catholic Faith. The Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, when performed as was specifically requested, will bring schismatics, Protestants, Masons, Communists and all peoples into the fold of the one true Church, and under the protection of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will then be loved and honored as Our Lord desire

You state: "Russia and only russia" is supposition, not supported by the facts or Sr. Lucia. In the lingo of the day, it is 'fake news'. Our Lady never said the word "Russia" had to be said exactly. To say one had to say "Russia" and only Russia as if it was a magic word is to reduce God to practicing magic and requesting magic spells be invoked."

Sister Lucy's Unwavering Testimony : Lucy made it plain again and again that what Our Lady called for is the Consecration of Russia, not the world. She herself emphasized that distinction-----not once, but many times. Let's talk about some of those occasions.

In 1946, she said: "Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart. What She demanded specifically was the Consecration of Russia." And the source for that is Professor William Thomas Walsh's Our Lady of Fatima on page 226. Walsh was one of the most eminent Catholic historians in the Western world and his book must be considered an authoritative source.

That's not all Sister Lucy said in Walsh's book. She further declared: "What Our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If this is done She will convert Russia and there will be peace." You will find that in Our Lady of Fatima, the same historical text, on page 226.

Sister Lucy did not stop there. In 1949 she insisted: "No, not the world, Russia, Russia." Here she was correcting one Father Thomas McGlynn, and the source for that is Vision of Fatima [by Fr. McGlynn], page 80. Notice that here she rebuked a priest. This is an obedient, cloistered nun who felt compelled to rebuke and correct a priest by emphasizing that Our Lady had asked for the Consecration of Russia, not the world.

And again in 1952, the Virgin Mary had said to Sister Lucy: "Make it known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the Consecration of Russia, Russia will not be able to convert nor will the world have peace." And the sources cited: Il Pellegrinaggio Della Meraviglie, published in Rome 1960, page 440.

Here is a particularly crucial example. In 1982, L'Osservatore Romano reported that in 1978, Sister Lucy was asked this critical question by Father Umberto, her confidant: "Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?" That's the question that lies at the heart of this whole controversy about the 1984 consecration ceremony and the 1982 consecration ceremony.

And what was Sister Lucy's answer to this critical question? "No, Father Umberto, never. At the Cova da Iria in 1917, Our Lady promised, 'I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia.' "And that was reported in L'Osservatore Romano, May 12, 1982-----that's L'Osservatore Romano, the Pope's own newspaper.

The thing that had to be clarified was something Sister Lucy had written to the Holy Father, Pius XII. Sister Lucy advised Father Umberto as follows: "In reply to your question, I will clarify. Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request, only referred to the Consecration of Russia." Let me emphasize, "only referred to the Consecration of Russia."

Both Lucia and the Vatican said it was done on March 25, 1984. Yes Lucia said Russia separate from the world, and that is what the Pope did.

Yes I read Walsh's book on Fatima.

You're missing the point.

The Pope DID consecrate Russia separate from the world when he said

"So we have wanted to choose this Sunday, the third Sunday of Lent of the year 1984, still within the Holy Year of the Redemption, for the act of entrusting, of consecrating the world, the great human family, all peoples, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN SUCH NEED OF THIS CONSECRATION, THIS ENTRUSTMENT [this capitalized text MEANS the RUSSIAN peoples]."

To repeat, for emphasis: the capitalized text MEANS the RUSSIAN peoples.

God is not an idiot, so don't make Him out to be one. He knows JPII meant Russia by this phrase, and so should you.

I am done with this line of discussion. Life is too short to go in circles with unreasonable people who insist 'black is white' to make things fit into their preconceived world view.

No, JPII did not consecrate Russia separately. IF he had, he would've said Russia, just as Lucy had indicated. THAT IS THE POINT! JPII did not follow the rules and he even admitted it. Lucy said "NO, never the world. Only Russia". Besides, not all the world's bishops were involved. As Lucy herself said, many bishops pay no heed to Fatima. Not only that but JPII never ordered the bishops to do this consecration. Russia was mentioned by Pius xii and that didn't work because he did not follow the dictates of Our Lady.

He was also afraid of an formal schism with the Orthodox. Notice, not a peep from the Russian church regarding JPII a 'separate consecration'. They didn't read between the lines Greg?

About Me

As part of research for my book Unveiling the Apocalypse: Prophecy in Catholic Tradition, I studied the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages before graduating in 2006 with First Class honours. My book is the product of around ten years of original research. This blog is intended as a means of supplementing the material presented in the book by providing relevant up-to-date information.